OPINION | Value of local councils often underrated

There's a whole cult of people who feed off this issue, toss it around and then flick it to new generations without ever examining the consequences.

In 1997 the minority Liberal Government was tone-deaf enough to think scorched earth amalgamations would be an election winner.

They lost office.

Local government is big business in Tasmania, with a combined turnover of almost $900 million a year.

Our councils collect more than $500 million a year in rates and when you add that to $440 million in state government property taxes and a further $325 million collected by TasWater, Tasmanians are paying almost $1.3 billion a year for the privilege of owning property.

At face value, we have way too many councils, some as big as corporations.

Greater Melbourne has 28 councils serving a population of five million, while Tasmania has 29 for a population of 522,000.

Not too long ago we had 46 councils.

There are 251 elected councillors.

If you add the number of councillors to the number of our state MPs, federal MPs and Tasmanian senators it works out at one elected representative per 1696 Tasmanians.

Some councils on the East Coast, South East and Tamar Valley could well merge for greater efficiency, but councils contribute more to their communities in grassroots representation than say, state governments.

In the North, six councils, namely Launceston, George Town, Dorset, West Tamar, Northern Midlands and Meander Valley had a combined wages bill of $101 million, for the 2018-19 financial year, according to the Auditor-General.

They employed 794, raised $125 million in rates, pocketed $27 million in federal grants and spent about $200 million.

Statewide, the total wages bill of the 29 councils, including employee entitlements like annual and long service leave, is almost $370 million a year, with 3350 full-time equivalent jobs.

Yes, local government is a big employer.

It's easy to make a case for amalgamations when you know it's never likely to happen and you don't have to worry about the job losses and scarce services.

When the major parties cut the size of Parliament in 1998 from 54 to 40 politicians we discovered in subsequent years, that rather than saving money the cost of a "smaller Parliament" kept rising above what it was prior to 1998.

The major parties like to beat the drum with council amalgamations because it's music to the ears of the private sector, especially those dealing with the myriad of planning rules.

But the scorched earth proponents are backing simplistic, bean counter-arguments.

Drastically slashing the number of councils would be a false economy just like it was with the smaller Parliament.

Whenever governments cut public services, ostensibly to save money, they will inevitably find new ways to waste it.

Reducing the number of councils for some better outcome is reducing the level of representation in a region without regard for the mug voter.

State governments would be absolutely fine with that.

A fair whack of the adult population across Tasmania would know a councillor.

People can walk into a council chamber but they can't always walk into state or federal Parliament.

The mayors of our two biggest cities earn $130,195 a year in salary and allowances. The West Tamar mayor earns $79,182, Meander Valley mayor $54, 248 and Dorset mayor $45,343.

Mayors are in the big league, presiding over millions in rates and expenditure and getting harassed daily by the demands of office.

Launceston's mayor presides over a budget of more than $100 million a year but the $130,195 a year salary and allowances is pathetic compared to, say, a Bass backbencher in State Parliament on almost $180,000 a year, with minimal public responsibilities apart from getting re-elected.

Allowances for the average councillor range from $9546 for small councils like Tasman, King and Flinders Island and Central Highlands, to $37,198 for councillors in the big cities.

That's peanuts for what they do. Councillors have to do it all themselves.

Backbenchers in state and federal Parliament have party machines and a very expensive bureaucracy to do it for them.

Councils are good value for money, although some could rein in their deficits.

They're quasi-regional business hubs, just like hospitals and schools, and if you remove them from a region it struggles.

Remove a council and you remove a piece of democracy.

I'll stick up for local government but it is a two-way street. If people want to keep their council they have to make the council truly democratic, by accepting compulsory voting.

Compulsory voting is good for democracy.

It forces people to engage in public activity, while they can still lodge an informal vote if they don't want to.

If you want politicians to keep their hands off local government make it truly representative.

Otherwise, your local council will remain a part-time indulgence for those who can be bothered.