USTA Campus Internacional

As the closest level of government to the community, councils are in a unique position to identify community needs are met. As a consequence, no two councils are exactly the same and that difference can be what makes a council special to those who live in the municipal area. This is not to say there is not opportunity for reform in Tasmania and nationally. But the argument to simply change geographic boundaries is a simplistic one that fails to strategically take into account the community and operational drivers of a complex and diverse business.164

Introduction

The general competence period refers to the ability of municipalities to take on roles and responsibilities with more flexibility and innovation, while staying within certain legislated standards. Changes to boundaries and local government responsibilities swing between unilateral and bilateral approaches. Pressure for an effective and efficient local government tier was added to by Federal micro-economic reforms driven by changes in Australia’s economy. The legacies of financial problems, poor infrastructure and complex administration are matters that continue to attract

unilateral responses from the State. This section considers why the 1989-1993 amalgamation process was so successful. It then looks at a number of changes that flowed from it. Planning reform and water reform are used to illustrate the State’s continued tendency towards unilateral change. The unilateral 1997 attempt at forced amalgamation is also touched on between considering the range of changes

experienced by local government since 1993. This section concludes by noting the current reform process in train at the time of writing this thesis.

1989-1993: A watershed in reform

Given the number of failed attempts at consolidating local government, the events of 1989 to 1993 resulting in a new Act, a reduction in the number of Councils from the then forty six to twenty nine (see Map 7) and reviews of local and State roles and functions and revenue capacity would seem something of a miracle. This successful round of consolidation was characterised by a negotiated process involving a highly collaborative, consultative, evidence-based and co-operative approach between

164

“Local governments work to colour in detail on the big picture”, K. Stephenson, The Mercury, 8 October 2015: 18

Councils via the Municipal Association and the State government, rather than the stale pattern of State-imposed demands for change.165 Consultation was over a significant timeframe of around two years and support for the recommendations was sufficiently widespread that they gained bi-partisan support and implementation when there was a change in State government in 1993.

While supported by larger and middle-sized Councils, there had been some dissention from smaller Councils over concerns such as loss of regional identity. This prompted one Member of the Upper House to introduce a Private Member’s Bill allowing for political interference via Parliament to change the independent Local Government Advisory Board’s recommendations. The defence was “merely representing the interest of smaller councils”.166

The purpose this time was not simply asking Councils to be more effective or economical in service provision. This reform period co-incided with an Australia- wide broader micro-economic reform agenda, contributing not only to local

government changes, but also to overall reform of Tasmania’s public sector capacity for efficiency and effectiveness, “irresponsive of who is responsible for the delivery” of services.167 For the Federal government it needed local government to play a critical role in regional development and structural adjustment and was willing to fund three major local government programs to meet the national agenda.168 Reminiscent of the 1906/08 reforms when all Mayors were called to two in-camera conferences to agree on the contents of a proposed Bill, the process was by

consensus with all Councils agreeing to a formal Modernisation Agreement via their peak body with the State Government, creating “a very real sense of ownership,

165

For policy documents leading up to and as a part of this period of reform, see Tasmania, Parliament 1983, Legislative Council Select Committee, Local Government Reorganization, Parl. Paper No. 52, Hobart; An Analysis of Certain Financial Issues Relating to Local Government in Tasmania, Municipal Association of Tasmania, 1984; Tasmania, Tasmanian Employment Summit, Proceedings, Hobart, 28-29 November, 1989; Tasmania, Local Government Advisory Board, Inquiry into the Modernisation of Local Government, Issues Discussion Paper, December 1990, Staff Transitional Arrangements Discussion Paper, November 1991, Modernisation Proposals Paper Part 1, July 1991, Indicative Proposals Paper, December 1991, Report, June 1992

166

P.D. [sic], “Political Chronicle: Tasmania”, The Australian Journal of Politics and History, 35, no. 2 (1989): 261

167 _{Rudi Roodenrys, “Local Government Reform: The Tasmanian Experience” in Australian Local}

Government Yearbook 1995, (North Melbourne: Hargreen Publishing Company, 1994), 28

168 _{Brian Howe, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Housing and Regional Development,}

“Introduction” in Australian Local Government Yearbook 1995, (North Melbourne: Hargreen Publishing Company, 1994), 3

partnership, responsibility and leadership with a strong mutual commitment to change”.169 It was followed by a period of equally co-operative reviews surrounding major infrastructure and planning until financial downturns saw a swing back to unilateral change in the events of 1997-98.

This reform attempt was also characterised by how the issue of “community of interest” was understood compared to earlier reform attempts, reflecting the significant changes Tasmania had undergone by the end of the twentieth century. Populations were now more likely to travel intra/interstate and overseas for work and recreation and had the financial capacity to do so. Information communication technologies and a shift from manufacturing to a service economy were changing how communities saw themselves both in Tasmania and globally when it came to cultural and economic interactions. By the end of the twentieth century the flow of ideas and culture no longer favoured the “mother country” of Britain; Tasmanians were opening up to the world.

Gone was the idea that “community of interest” should be the same for one area. Tasmanians could be expected to, and did, accommodate many different

communities of interest at township, urban and regional level. The Local

Government Advisory Board believed that such changes had “surely undermined the claims of each individual centre of population to be the natural centre of a local community, at least in the government sense.” For this reason the advantages of administrative efficiency and professional expertise found in larger municipal areas would no longer be at odds with social desirability and local “community of

interest”.170

Evidence of change is seen in the successful rise of three local government regional organisations. Earlier attempts at regionalisation prior to the 1989-1993

modernisations were either stillborn in their conception or failed to eventually overcome problems of parochialism in their implementation. Regionalisation as a policy idea in Tasmania found fertile financial support in the regional development policies of the Hawke-Keating Federal governments. Federal policy divided Tasmania into three regions based on the old Telecom area code boundaries.

169 _{Roodenrys, “Local Government Reform”, 29} 170

Tasmania, Local Government Advisory Board, Inquiry into the Modernisation of Local Government. Issues Discussion Paper, December 1990, p. 25

Combined with the reforms of 1989-1993 and those that followed, the now larger councils are more willing to look outside their municipal boundaries and create relationships with other Councils around shared resources and issues. The co-

operation extends to the extent of backing issues that affect some but not all Councils in the shared relationship - a stark contrast to the findings of the July 1988

Tasmanian State Institute of Technology seminar focusing on the costs of

parochialism.171 By 2015 resource sharing, sharing of key professional staff and regional advocacy have become common modes of interaction between Councils:

Local government is able to make its own changes and we will call on other levels of government when we need to make changes...It won’t be dictated to by State Government or the Upper House...There is already a lot more

understanding and discussion about resource sharing and sharing of services...Lots of Councils do interact with their neighbours and share personnel; it is not uncommon.172

To be fair, the litany of failed amalgamation attempts does tend to overshadow some significant positive changes that flowed from the 1989/93 experiences. Planning, building and environmental legislation instituted at the time considerably improved control over local areas for Councils. The new Local Government Act freed up Councils from the prescriptive powers in the old Act, replacing it with a general competence power. Electoral reforms have contributed to improved participation and wider representation, particularly since the conduct of municipal elections by the Tasmanian Electoral Commission since 1993. The profile of local government was raised by a special inclusion in State Budget documents, compared to earlier years where it only rated a mention either for reform issues or due to special financial arrangements with the Federal government.173 Requirements for strategic and asset

171

See for example the reasons behind development of resource sharing agreements in E Ruzicka,

Local Government in Tasmania: Beyond Amalgamation, (Hons. thesis, University of Tasmania, October 2007); see also joint agreements at Cradle-Coast Authority at http://www.cradlecoast.com/, Northern Tasmania Development at

http://www.northerntasmania.org.au/ and Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority at http://stca.tas.gov.au/ See also Marcus Haward, “Political Chronicle: Tasmania”, The Australian Journal of Politics and History, 35, no. 2 (1989): 270

172 _{“Councils facing big shake-up this year, with water and sewerage reforms. Preparing for the}

times ahead”, The Examiner, 2 January 2009: 18. Comments were by Latrobe Mayor Mike Gaffney who was also President of the Local Government Association of Tasmania and Member for Mersey in the Upper House. See also the commentary of the current LGAT President, Mayor Doug Chipman in “Don’t knock your Council”, The Mercury, 31 October 2015: 34

173 _{See for example Tasmania, Parliament 1994, The 1994-95 Tasmanian Budget and Supporting}

Information, Budget Paper No. 1,Government Printer, Tasmania; Tasmania, Parliament 1994,

planning have considerably professionalised approaches to municipal property. In 2003 a groundbreaking agreement, the first of its kind in Australia, instituted

significant financial reforms in the relationship between State and local governments. It resulted in a sort of equalisation of how each tier pays money for taxes, rates and other charges to each other. The only losers were municipalities with significant tracts of Forestry land who gain no rates income. Overall local government benefitted from the abolition of up to $10 million in State Government levies on councils.174

Between 1999 and the most recently signed in 2012, Partnerships Agreements have been used to improve co-operation and address strategic issues at bilateral, regional, statewide or tripartite levels. In the first iterations of signing, the Agreements sought to deliver benefits for local communities with State and local government officials starting to work more closely and collaboratively. The most recent Partnership Agreement between the Local Government Association of Tasmania and the State Government recognised the value of such relationships and the role played in improving the relationship and communication and consultation processes between the two tiers of government.175 In 2000 the Premier’s Local Government Council was created to form a high-level forum for discussions between the State and councils on issues of statewide significance and has continued to meet three times a year. Such positive outcomes are overshadowed by how water and sewerage reforms and municipal planning reform have and are being played out, much like earlier unilateral demands for amalgamation.

Tasmania, Parliament 1995, Budget Paper No. 1. Budget Overview 1995-96, Parl. Paper No. 1, Hobart; Tasmania, Parliament 1996, Budget Paper No. 1. Budget Overview 1996-97, Parl. Paper No. 1, Hobart; Tasmania, Parliament 1997, Budget Paper No. 1. Budget Overview 1997- 98, Parl. Paper No. 2, Hobart. See also Tasmania, Parliament 1936, Financial Statement of the Treasurer of Tasmania, the Hon. Edmund Dwyer-Gray, 1936-37, Journals and Printed Papers No. 23, Sect. 17 (iv)-(v), Hobart; Tasmania, Parliament 2010, 2010-11 Budget Speech, M. Aird, Hobart, 17 June, 2010. www.budget.tas.gov.au/media/pdf/publications/2010- 11_Budget_Speech.pdf Accessed 24 October 2010

174 _{Tasmania, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Statewide Partnership Agreement between}

Government of Tasmania and Tasmanian Councils on Financial Reform, Local Government Division, July 2003, 2

175

Tasmania, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Governments working together: Second Statewide Partnership Agreement on Communication and Consultation between the State Government and the Local Government Associations of Tasmania on behalf of Tasmanian Councils, December 2012, 3. See also Tasmania, Department of Premier and Cabinet 2010, “Partnership agreements with local government”

1997: A return to unilateral amalgamation reform

Local government had to resort again to the use of legal tactics to prevent amalgamations occurring in 1997 when three small councils (Devonport City, Central Highlands and Southern Midlands) challenged forced amalgamations on technical electoral grounds.176 Despite the lessons of the successful modernisation process of 1989-1993 the State government again attempted to force unilateral change at a time when Tasmania was under severe economic and social stress.177 Comparatively high levels of debt and taxation severity combined with low growth, declining population, high unemployment and vulnerability through reliance on Federal grants. Tasmania was at a policy crossroad with the State government feeling the need to radically change direction.178

The Premier released an outcomes-based Directions Statement in April 1997. It listed a wide range of policy changes that in its view the State needed to undertake, including a reduction in the number of councils with a commitment to reduce the twenty nine councils created in 1993 to not more than fifteen.179 A newly re- constituted Local Government Board was directed to consult with the public and deliver a report and recommendation within six months (it took seven).

The idea of “community of interest” was this time defined as follows in the Ministerial Requirements:

…common links and interests between communities and areas should be recognised for the purpose of preventing artificial divisions in those links and interests.180

In its initial Discussion Paper, the Board carefully considered what the term “community of interest” meant, noting “social boundaries (could be) considered more important than geographic boundaries”. Although there was general agreement that a common geographic area and “at least one common interest substantially

176 _{Tasmania, Supreme Court of Tasmania Decisions, Devonport City Council, Central Highlands}

Council and Southern Midlands Council v Farrell, David (Chief Electoral Officer) [1998] TASSC 92 (3 August 1998), see http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/tas/TASSC/1998/92.html accessed 10 October 2010

177 _{Marcus Haward and Ivan Zwart, “Local Government in Tasmania: reform and restructuring”,}

Australian Journal of Political Science, 59 no. 3 (September 2000): 34-48

178

Tony McCall, “Political Chronicle: Tasmania”, The Australian Journal of Politics and History, 43, no. 3 (1997): 433

179 _{Tasmania, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Directions Statement, “Directions for Local}

Government”, 10 April 1997, 3

180

Tasmania, Local Government Board, 1997 Tasmanian Local Government Review. Discussion Paper, 22 July 1997, 4

shared between the residents of that area” formed the basic elements of the concept, the Board also noted that the concept had changed over time as people’s relationship to locality was no longer strong or exclusive. 181 The Exposure Draft released for public comment in November 1997 found in public hearings there was little agreement in what the term “community of interest” meant or the significance that should be attached to it. It viewed existing council structures as tending to divide strong common interests so removal of these divisions into larger Councils was a beneficial move.182 Twenty nine councils would be reduced to nine with the Bass Strait islands retaining their local autonomy.

Three months after the State government released its Discussion Paper, the July 1997 Nixon report, Tasmania into the 21st Century, was also made public. Nixon’s recommendations went even further, arguing for no more than eight councils and an ongoing re-assessment of local government roles and functions.183

Local government responses to the 1997 Exposure Draft recommendations included statements saying it would “never receive the full endorsement of significant

elements of local government as being an objective and transparent piece of work”.184 The Review process was described as fundamentally flawed with

prescribed outcomes even before the evaluation process had commenced. Compared to the 1989-1993 process, consultation was only over six months, Councils were given just eighteen days to comment on the Exposure Draft and the Board only allowed itself four days to comment on council responses. The process was seen by a group of Southern Councils as “coercive,” and “a total affront to democratic principles”.185 The promise of elector polls from the Minister for Local Government to gauge public acceptance of amalgamations was criticised for their timing and urgency. The Local Government Board wryly noted in January 1998 in delivering its Final Report it was “somewhat of an understatement” to say its work was affected by

181 _{Tasmania, Local Government Board, 1997 Tasmanian Local Government Review. Discussion}

Paper, 22 July 1997, 24, 26

182 _{Tasmania, Local Government Board, 1997Tasmanian Local Government Review. Exposure}

Draft, November 1997, 24-25

183 _{Tasmania, Local Government Board, 1997 Tasmanian Local Government Review. Discussion}

Paper, 22 July 1997; Tasmania, Tasmania into the 21st Century, Joint Commonwealth-State Inquiry into the Tasmanian Economy (Hobart, July 1997), 70-78

184 _{Hobart City Council, Glenorchy City Council and Clarence City Council, Joint Response to the}

1997 Tasmanian Local Government Review Exposure Draft Report, December 1997, 4

185

Hobart City Council, Glenorchy City Council and Clarence City Council, Joint Response to the 1997 Tasmanian Local Government Review Exposure Draft Report, December 1997, 4, 7

a backdrop of “turbulence and controversy”.186 The Nixon Report and the public responses to it may have made the Directions Statement look less challenging yet there was no evidence of public desire to support further amalgamations as the now four year old Councils and their communities were still working through the effects of 1993 boundary changes.187 The outcomes of seven out of nine elector polls conducted in February overwhelmingly opposed amalgamations.188

The Board noted the “overwhelming” financial evidence should amalgamations occur to both local government and at the State level on economic, social and

environmental grounds and publicly criticised councils of misinformation, leading to calls from local government for sacking.189 As 1998 progressed, pressure to resist boundary changes mounted across a number of Councils. As an independent

authority, the Board found that the Minister could, via the Local Government Act, be requested to reconsider its January 1998 Final Report recommendations. Boundary adjustments were requested and the Board noted “it had been persuaded to make a number of changes to council boundaries” included in its Principal

Recommendations.190 It still stuck to the recommendation of eleven councils and left it to the Minister to make any further changes. On June 22 the government

announced a reduction to only fourteen councils in an attempt to accommodate areas of greatest opposition in the community.191 These changes still did not satisfy rural and urban fringe councils and by this time they had enlisted the support of

Opposition parties and Members of the Legislative Council. The State government chose to use regulations to enact amalgamation changes to take place at the