UPDATE

Just what do the people want and who is asking?

Madeleine Ogilvie MP* Pic* 29.01.17 10:34 am on Tasmania Times writes:... "It is the best of times and the worst of times for Local Government - to borrow a phrase. As we have seen disruption across a number of local industries, so too we are seeing it in the very structures of our local democracy. ........................ It will come as no surprise to anyone that there are challenges in our local government structures - one council in administration, another on notice. It is no small thing to remove democratically elected representatives. ........................ Everyone is quite rightly deeply concerned. ........................ In addition, the Liberal government is reviewing the Local Government Act and has already launched sweeping changes to planning and building laws. Yet there are gaps in the thinking and approach - with lack of consultation being a running theme. ........................ I have also reviewed the Act in light of recent events. ........................ Little consideration appears to have been given to the critical question - ‘what do people want’ and how best to deliver it. Unless we are asking that question, and engaging Tasmanians in developing solutions, as policy makers we risk missing the mark. I have listened to the discussion on the merit of ‘citizen juries’, particularly in these pages, which pick up on these themes. ........................ The retention of local councils, with their local offices, local representation and local jobs, seems to me to be an important part of not only our democracy, but the functioning of our diverse towns and cities. ........................ Forced amalgamations are not the way to go (in my view). Despite what the Minister would have us believe, the mere step of amalgamation does not deliver improved performance, reduce cost or improve democractic representation. Proper thought has to be given to the scope of services, the rates charged, other sources of income, the jobs that would inevitably be shed and whether this is what the people of Tasmania want. ........................ Do people even want amalgamations - I’d say the jury is out on that. ........................ The thorny old organisational structural issue of “centralise v de-centralise” is no different in this context. Of course everything could be amalgamated in Hobart - but would that of itself deliver better outcomes? ........................ How does one even quantify reduced democratic representation in this scenario? ........................ If we reflect on what Labor has done well before (the Tasmania Together process was a good example), we do best when we consult. ........................ I’ve been contemplating whether we can re-boot such a process for our contemporary political landscape (I’m not wedded to the name - suggestions welcome!). A process for continuous consultation that engages the people of Tasmania in a meaningful and genuine way, and which delivers outcomes, could be a game changer for our Island."- See more at: http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/what-do-people-want-/#sthash.fBnFIofm.dpuf

EDITOR'S NOTE: It is indeed encouraging to see that the "Shadow Minister" has come out of her liar to preside over the evolving discourse the Minister is precipitating – or is it stumbling into, that's not entirely clear. This issue has been brewing for quite a while and the silences have been thunderous. 

The Minister for whatever reason has largely been working to maintain the status quo in that he enters a fracas rather gingerly and is then inclined to withdraw just when his proaction might be productive. In its own way that is instructive. 

Nonetheless, Madeleine Ogilvie seems to have opened her door to a dialogue of some sort even if it seems that her mind might still be ajar. Politically all this is tricky territory and there are incomes at stake – councillors and aldermanic allowances is one area of sensitivity you would have to suspect. 

We’ve arrive at an interesting place in ‘these difficult times’ in regard to all this as a lot of these ‘allowances’ have the hallmark of sinecure stamped upon them – some are even rolled gold dependable incomes. And then there is the question of the ‘surplus to requirements’ managerial posts. 

Anyway let’s see where this goes and who is up for what going forward.

Tandra Vale

Amalgamation Is That The Question?

Click here for more information on Madeleine Ogilvie MP Shadow Local Government

From Tasmania Times: "Gutwein let Glenorchy community down by ignoring council Madeleine Ogilvie MP Shadow Local Government and Planning Minister 27.01.17 3:12 pm 

 Minister sat on his hands while things fell apart 

 Glenorchy residents deserved better 

 Minister must answer questions around costs of inquiry 

Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein should have acted months ago on the Glenorchy City Council to help mediate in the best interests of ratepayers. .................... Shadow Local Government Minister Madeleine Ogilvie said while it was clear to even the most casual observer that the council was not doing the best for its ratepayers, Mr Gutwein watched from the sidelines in the style typical of the hands-off Hodgman Government. .................... “My sympathies lay with Glenorchy residents who deserve a Minister who can help deliver a functional council,” Ms Ogilvie said. eing met. .................... “As Minister responsible for all councils, he should have been around the table attempting to sort out the problems and helping the council mediate. .................... “But – once again after the debacle of the Huon Valley Council – he has shown he is totally incapable of good management of local government, which is very important to the individual strengths of local communities. .................... “Now that he has asked the council to show the government why it should not be suspended, Minister Gutwein needs to tell Glenorchy ratepayers how much money has been wasted on inquiries to get to this point. .................... “And once again he needs to be honest with Tasmanians and tell them if this move, like the move on Huon, is the first step toward forced council amalgamations.” .... - See more at: http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/press-releases/#sthash.HiPb7AXA.dpuf

eMAIL The Shadow Minister madeleine.ogilvie@parliament.tas.gov.au

EDITORS NOTE:  Ms Ogilvie needs to take a longer look and a more proactive stance in regard to what’s happening in Local Govt. in Tasmania. The first thing to acknowledge is that the Tasmanian Local Govt. Act 1993 is way past its use-by-date. It is an enormous and cumbersome (clumsy and dysfunctional!) document that's been patched up and repatched. This has gone on for far too long and now that it is the 21^st Century it’s time for a local governance model that fits 21^st C circumstances.

Then there is the number of councils in the State. It’s said over and over that 29 councils is too many for the size of Tasmania’s population but it turns out that too many people are reliant upon ratepayers largess for them to be advocates for anything other than more, and more of the same. 

It’s said that there is something like $2.3 Billion  spent in Local Govt. in Tasmania that could and should be better spent. We are unlikely to see that argument advanced by the present recipients of ratepayers’ largess. However, Tasmanians cannot afford for it to go on.

Ms Ogilvie also needs to look at the current patched up Act very closely and see where it devolves far too much power to the operational component of local government.

The objections to ‘forced amalgamations’ are pretty much all to do with the loss of representation, local representation that is. However there is/are models where that can be retained and in fact the current Act does not deliver ‘local representation’ in practice or a real and practical sense – and especially so when councillors/aldermen get sidelined.

In 1990 a delegation from Launceston went to New Zealand to explore what that country had done and much was learnt. However, too many had too much at stake, rather too much to lose, and nothing of substance came of it eventually and rates keep getting higher and so on and so on!

NSW and South Australia use Citizens Assemblies (Juries?) to include ‘the electorate’ in the exploration of new concepts, contentious ideas, etc. to break stalemates and that’s an idea that deserves support.Perhaps this time round, the dysfunctionalism might just galvanize someone into meaningful action. 

ONE MORE COUNCIL TO ADD TO THE DYSFUNCTIONAL LIST

ABC NEWS Glenorchy City Council aldermen face suspension, appointment of commissioner .... "Glenorchy City Council aldermen have one week to convince Tasmania's Local Government Minister not to suspend them. ............ Peter Gutwein said the council was not operating as it should, and the best interests of the Glenorchy community must be protected. ............ Aldermen have seven days to write to him and convince him not to suspend them and appoint a commissioner. ............ Mr Gutwein said he had not taken the action lightly. ............ "I have obviously taken this decision in the best interests of the Glenorchy City ratepayers, this is about ensuring that ratepayers get the type of governance that they deserve," he said. ............ "I have today spoken with each of the Glenorchy City aldermen individually and explained to them that I am considering standing them down. ............ "It would be for a period of up to six months but there are a range of reasons of which I have written formally to each alderman today to explain." ............ Mr Gutwein said he was not convinced he would appoint a commissioner. ............ In a statement, Mayor Kristie Johnston said the municipality deserved better. ............ "It is a rocky road to better governance at Glenorchy, but it is one that has to be taken because at the end of the day Glenorchy deserves a functional, transparent and accountable Council that acts in the best interest of residents," she said. ............ "I reiterate that I am deeply concerned about the governance arrangements at Glenorchy City Council. The community deserves better." Mayor Johnston said she would fully cooperate with a board of inquiry, should the Government choose not to intervene. ............ Last September, Mr Gutwein sacked the Huon Valley Council because of infighting. ............ A former mayor of Glenorchy, Adriana Taylor, was appointed to run the council after a board of inquiry recommended it be dismissed."

EDITOR'S NOTE: So 2017 kicks of with yet another council failing the pub-test or at least the ministerial-patience-test. As to the internal machinations at Glenorchy City Council that's a bit of a mystery but the news around 'the traps' is that its all a bit titchy and quite probably along with the gnashing of teeth comes head-banging and of course the usual ego-clashing as well.

The catalogue of dysfunctionalism in Tasmanian Local Govt continues to grow and  grow. It is all very concerning in the way  it is proceeding. There is on one hand a commentary going on about the need for amalgamations and on the other there is resistance to the very notion. Whatever, amalgamating councils under the current Local Govt Act 1993 would be sheer folly. This act is so out of touch with the current world that it is well beyond tweaking to bring it up to date and deliver 21st Century accountability. No wonder councils are in trouble!

The application of the Code Of Conduct protocols for councillors and aldermen is an example of failed tweaking.  It is increasingly evident that ratepayers cop it in the hip pocket when it fails and quite probably when it succeeds as well. And then there is the provisions of SECTION 62 that get used by general managers all too often to avoid accountability and sideline elected representatives.

It has to be recognised that Tasmania just cannot afford 29 Council and that reducing to a number consistent with the size of the population offers potentially huge dividends for ratepayers. The argument put by some that there is about $2Billion that could and should be better spent than maintaining the status quo. However, elected representatives and senior management alike are trotting out the 'democracy argument' to justify the status quo. Can anybody say why that might be given the benefits enshrined?

Insisting on the integrity of  the 'elected representatives' rings hollow when they are sidelined by management. In all too many cases councillors' and aldermen's allowances amount to attendance cum compliance 'allowances'.

Right now 'The Glenorchy Situation' is evolving in an atmosphere of contentiousness and it is hardly surprising. As they say"watch this space."

Local Government In Review – 2016

THE INTRODUCTION: "Local government in Tasmania is facing a period of significant reform (??), with the possibility of amalgamation, new models of resource-sharing and continued work on moving to a statewide planning scheme.

As the closest level of government to the community, councils do a lot more than just managing our rates, roads and rubbish.

A 21st century council is judged on its ability to directly influence people’s lives and across the state municipal workers are taking on more responsibilities than ever before.

The Examiner’s local government reporter HOLLY MONERY [LINK] reviews some of the most prominent council-related stories from 2016."

EDITOR'S NOTE: It seems that The Examiner's Holly Monery is spending quite a lot of time talking to "municipal workers" – managers?? – and spending very little time with the elected representatives – or for that matter local government constituents. What the 'review' exhibits more than anything else is the writer's lack of 'domain knowledge'.  And, it's time that the people at Fairfax attended to that sort of thing if they wish to survive publishing hardcopy local newspapers in the 21st Century.

Sadly, this so-called 'review' fails the pub-test in that it self-evidently absorbs and then credentials the bureaucratic rhetoric coming out the 'operational divisions' of councils. Worryingly, it does it without critique nor the slightest hint of interrogation – investigation either as often as not. However Ms Monery is not alone as  in many councils neither do the Councillors/Aldermen. They seem to have been persuaded 'to get out of the way'  and let the experts(??)  get on with it – and let the press report the operation point of view. 

The smoothed-over fact is that general managers are flexing their bureaucratic muscles and insisting that it is them who are there to make the 'real decisions' and its the elected representatives' role to not only listen-up but also to jump when called upon to do so. 

This writer is told that on many occasions 'council heavies' are reported as telling constituents that they "do not need to answer their questions" or "we have the authority to do whatever we want here" and "this is an operational matter and nothing to do with [the elected representatives]". It is more than concerning when this translates as being a disinclination to be accountable – despite the Ministers' bumblings last May.

Local newspapers have a role to play here but are they doing anything that might resemble holding elected representatives to account or for that matter holding their 'servants'  – public servants after all – to account? The evidence speaks loudly for itself!

As for 'the possibility of amalgamation', it is abundantly clear that Tasmania has way too many councils and too many for its relatively tiny population to sustain. Whether its 26 too many, or its 22 that's too many, or some other number, its clear that a great many dollars might be better spent than at present via the funding of Councillor/Aldermen and so-called 'senior management', most of whom could be safely dispensed with in a flash. 

The question here is, is The Examiner interrogating any of this? Not a bit of it! Since, 'senior management' holds the purse strings these 'functionaries' are humoured in order to win the 'advertising dollars' and as time passes 'the trickle down effect'  is palpable and the 'constituents' lose out at every turn, over and over.

There is much more to say on all this but it is clear that 'standards' applying to local governance reporting is well and truly underdone –  and especially so at The Examiner. By way of contrast, the authority applying to 'civic functionaries' is overblown. 

By the look of things no time soon can we  expect The Examiner, or for that matter any other corporatised local newspaper, to lift their game or indeed 'their standards'. Fortunately, social media has a role to play in filling this hole in local newspapers' credibility.

Tandra Vale, Social Commentator 

Building reforms eliminate council permits for garages and other low-risk home projects

BRUCE MOUNSTER, Mercury January 8, 2017 2:11pm

HOMEOWNERS wanting to build a garage, shed or porch now just have to go to the hardware store, get the materials and start work. State Government building reforms which eliminate council building approval requirements for “low-risk work” have come into effect.

Building and Construction Minister Guy Barnett said the nation-leading reforms had removed all red tape for simple projects such as:

• CONSTRUCTION of a shed, garage or carport up to 18 square metres.
• ERECTION of a prefabricated shed, garage or carport up to 36 square metres.
• BUILDING A PORCH up to 9 square metres, or a deck of any size up to 1m off the ground.

“A homeowner or a competent person working for the owner may carry out this work without the need for the homeowner to be registered as an owner builder, engage a building surveyor, apply for a building permit or fill in application forms or pay approval fees,” he said.

Homeowners who hire a licenced builder can commission a wider range of low-risk work without approval, including:

• INTERIOR alterations to an existing residential building.
• REMOVAL OR INSTALLATION of load bearing walls.
• BUILDING A SHED or garage up to 36 square metres or a porch up to 18 square metres.
  

More complex work, referred to as medium-risk, can also be carried out by a licenced builder if the plans are assessed and certified by a licenced building surveyor.

Mr Barnett said previously it would often take longer to fill out the forms and wait for the approvals than it did to actually complete the building project.

“More home building and renovation projects will provide a huge boost for Tasmanian retailers and help support jobs,” he said.

“But it’s not just DIY Tasmanians that will benefit. Licensed builders and plumbers will no longer need council building permits for a range of works, up to and including two-storey homes.

“Tasmanians, especially those working in the building and construction industry, which employs close to 20,000 locals, will benefit through less red tape and more common sense rules.”

END

EDITOR’S NOTE: There are upsides and downsides to this development and it would appear that the whole scenario has not been thought through all that well. Immediately coming to mind are the liability issues. Just who is it that carries the liability load and how can their risks be mitigated and by whom?

Importantly this move removes an administrative load from council operations and hopefully it is the thin edge of the wedge that removes the entire quality assurance relative to ‘building and construction’ from Local Govt. altogether. As it has turned out this ‘service’ has become expensive and increasingly burdensome for ratepayers in a general way and developers in particular. This is not to say that building and construction doesn’t need regulating it just doesn’t need to be ‘the council’ that does it.

The dead hand of building surveyors interpretation of ‘the regulations’ can have, and arguably has had a blanding impact the built environment in urban areas. When this happens against the specter of ‘lowest common denominator’ decision making the opportunities to embrace new technologies and/or new understandings of past conventions shrink exponentially.

When this happens in combination with the ‘managerialism’ that is increasingly determining outcomes via the administration of Local Govt. operations there are increased opportunities to invoke self-serving deeming not always based on evidence or appropriate domain knowledge. Typically ‘quality’ is the victim!

Many council have withdrawn from the provision on building and construction surveying and arguably this will be a saving for ratepayers generally. Interestingly the City of Launceston maintains the  ‘service’ and arguably as a ratepayer subsidised service. This also, arguably, has the effect of maintaining the size of the city’s bureaucracy – Tasmania’s largest local govt. bureaucracy(?).

At face value, it is arguable that it is a service that is as a consequence a ‘ratepayer subsidised service’ operating in competition – unfair competition(?) – with independent service providers. Why might this be so? Who benefits and at what cost to whom?

There is clearly a need to give the building and construction component of ‘local administration’ a good shake. If the qualified relaxation of regulations for so-called minor works is in fact a step towards removing building and construction supervision from ‘council administration’, and thus tempering the salaries-with-benefits-churn, this holds the promise of it being a significant step forward.

Moreover, if the service providers employed by councils are indeed ‘effective experts’, and are able to compete in the competitive market they could and should be doing so on a true cost recovery basis.