MANY Tasmanian councils have engaged over the past decade in resource sharing in an attempt to gain cost and service efficiency, and perhaps to stave off talk of amalgamation.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The list of councils with resource sharing agreements is a growing one - with Waratah-Wynyard, Circular Head, Latrobe, Kentish, Northern Midlands, Meander Valley, and councils on the East Coast just some of those involved.
But Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski said more needs to happen, adding a meeting between Northern Tasmanian council general managers two weeks ago showed a keenness to explore the issue further.
``In terms of current resource sharing, Northern Tasmanian councils don't do a lot at the moment,'' he said.
``It only becomes a viable business proposition if you have latent capacity in your resources, and few councils have that.''
Mr Dobrzynski said a challenge of resource sharing was striking a balance of mutual benefit, where one council did not wear costs for another council's benefit.
But he said collaborative bulk purchasing and information technology for regional systems management, rather than councils operating on individual systems, were two areas that could immediately cut costs for all.
``Also I can envisage it leading to collaboration in terms of the development of guidelines and policies on a whole range of council activities, so that we have consistency across the region and efficiency in terms of implementation,'' he said.
Meander Valley general manager Greg Preece has advocated resource and knowledge sharing for some time.
He said councils who outsourced services to other councils could earn money that otherwise would have been sent to private business.
In return, the councils who bought these services got them at a cheaper rate.
Meander Valley has bought in and contracted out services to West Tamar, Northern Midlands and Dorset - to name a few.
He said collaborative work between councils was always continuing.
One upcoming minor, but helpful adjustment, involves the ability to lodge development or building applications for a specific location at any Tasmanian council.
Mr Preece said while the amalgamation argument would likely be ever-present, the general community were more concerned about service delivery over boundary shifts.
``Realistically, most people out in the community are only interested in what services are delivered and not how councils deliver them,'' he said.
Mr Preece said resource sharing, as an alternative to amalgamation, ensured small group representation was maintained.
Mary Massina, spokeswoman for pro-amalgamation lobby group Tasmanians For Reform, said there was no hard evidence that resource sharing produced efficiencies.
``Despite talking about resource sharing since 1907 and publicly committing to it after the court challenge that derailed mergers in 1997, there has been little show of resource sharing by Tasmania's 29 councils,'' Ms Massina said.
``Nor has there been any decrease in the number of authorities to assist councils manage their services.
``(For example) in the South of the state, there are 16 authorities for 12 councils.
``Resource sharing also decreases frontline workers - not administration and governance.''
