Despite 17 federal politicians and 40 state politicians, Tasmania has 29 councils with 263 elected members. The 29 cost almost $700 million a year and sit on about $7 billion in assets.

They collect more than $400 million in rates every year. That’s equivalent to about 40 per cent of the state government’s total taxation collections.

For its tiny population Tasmania has an elected federal, state or local member for ever 1600 people.

In round figures the state has one council per 18,000 of population. Victoria has one for every 74,000, Queensland one for every 64,000 and in NSW one for every 49,000. Only the Northern Territory has a worse ratio than we do.

You can feel torn with this argument. When the state cut the number of politicians people roundly applauded, but it also meant they lost almost 30 per cent of their representation in the Parliament. The cost of Parliament kept growing, but the aim was for greater efficiency, not just savings.

If you cut the number of councils to 11; with say nine mainland Tasmanian councils and one each for King and Flinders Islands, as advocated by the local government board in 1998, you also cut back representation.

The regional water authorities were meant to help drive local communities and build what local councils had neglected for years in water and sewerage infrastructure, but they became too costly and were rolled back into one.

When councils do away with representative regions or districts such as council wards, they disenfranchise and alienate remote communities.

The Australian Constitution guarantees Tasmania five House of Representative seats and 12 Senate seats so we don’t become overwhelmed by the bigger states. We suffer anyway, but at least they can’t cut our number any further.

But clearly there are savings to be had by council amalgamation, through efficiencies like structural reform. The state government won’t force it because the Libs were punished for trying in 1997-98. Labor has made a virtue out of backing local government so don’t expect proactive reform from them either.

It will either happen from within, or through the imposition of scarce resources, perhaps manipulated by the other two tiers. Starve them out.

How would a leaner system help? Reports have identified efficiency gains in the order of 20 to 30 per cent by reforming local government. Certainly a single statewide planning scheme will be better than 36 separate plans, when it finally happens.

Duplication of plant and equipment would be saved. Resource sharing is just another excuse for avoiding mergers. There’s a $260 million wages bill and surely a leaner system would eat into some of that $400 million a year rates impost.

It is mystifying that while the urban cost of water has skyrocketed in recent years the commensurate level of rates has also skyrocketed, when it was supposed to drop.

Yes, you lose some of the representation, but how many people does Tasmania need to oversee our tiny economy and look after our interests? Our demographics include diverse communities, but no more diverse than other states; just more insular and parochial.

Look at it another way. If you add Tasmania’s annual rates bill to state taxation you get almost $1.4 billion. That’s equivalent to almost $3000 a year per head of population, and that’s even before Tony Abbott has a crack.