THE Labor Opposition should junk its election strategy and concentrate on one issue, local government.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
There are two issues that infuriate Tasmanians more than anything, selling our energy assets and local government amalgamation.
The asset sale is a dead issue but once again a clueless Liberal government is handing their opponents the reigns of government on a platter.
I cant believe that half way into its current term and facing the death penalty of being in office too long the Libs are messing with local government.
What don't they understand about parish-pump politics?
I will happily forward to Local Government Minister Nick Street the phone number of a bygone Liberal Local Government Minister, Denise Swan, who watched as the issue blew up in her face, and then lost her seat.
The Labor Opposition ought to pay former Speaker Michael Polley to rewrite their election strategy.
It should take him about five pages, but they would be certain to win.
In 1997 Minister Denise Swan stepped back and let the Local Government Board draw up plans for amalgamation, which it did with a scorched earth manifesto that would have slashed the number of councils.
She remained mute for a year and Michael Polley travelled the state scoring mortal hits on the government wherever he went.
In 2003 the Libs have once again entrusted the board to draw up a manifesto, like writing a political suicide note.
So in an interim report the unelected but enthusiastic board decided to throw out most of the 29 councils and shove them into nine regional hubs.
That is nine councils. Just nine.
Scorched earth.
This is what the board said in March.
This means not being bound to current council boundaries as the basis for future structures.
We are, in essence, asking the Tasmanian community to adopt, at least in the first instance, a 'clean sheet of paper' approach to thinking about the overall future design of local government in Tasmania.
A "clean sheet of paper" is code for up to 20 fewer councils in the state.
On top of this scorching process the government has stripped the board of the option on what to do with development applications.
If you remove the DA function from local councils you are usurping their powers and rendering them as a glorified day-labour force and tax collector of the fire levy.
The board has also recommended a move away from the traditional factor of financial management in amalgamations.
Of course they would.
The state government's budget position is diabolical.
It is probably not the time to be highlighting council fiscal inefficiency in terms of what the government wants.
In its interim report the board says: We think creating larger, more capable councils can improve community engagement and participatory democracy at the local level.
How on earth can this be true?
READ MORE: New Rotary club helping build community
How can you improve community engagement and participatory democracy when you are most likely slashing the number of councils plus staff and councillors?
At the next elections voters will notice two things.
Firstly the government will leave them with a dramatic cut in the number of councils and secondly the government will have enabled the Parliament to increase by 10 seats.
This double standard alone will guarantee Labor far more seats than it currently has even if the government holds on.
I fully expect the two rebel Liberal MPs to use the amalgamation issue in their quest for re-election.
They would be insane not to.
It's a given for them as well as Labor.
I must confess to being a supporter of fewer councils, if possible, but I don't trust the government to manage the process, nor do I trust the Local Government Board to be anything other than just another bureaucracy, doing the government's bidding, intentionally or unintentionally.
In this column I am more interested in the politics and whether Labor has the dexterity to get off the cost of living roundabout and zoom in on local government.
Cost of living is a national and even an international issue.
It won't win government for any state in isolation.
But, local government is a reverse cycle of the NIMBY principle, writ large on every forehead of every voter.
Don't mess with my backyard.
When you add a scare campaign to the mix you've already dug part of the graveyard for the outgoing administration.
As Bob Hawke once said in the early years of his prime ministership: you can have the best policies in history but they count for nothing if you are not in government.
Local government reform ought to have been planned from day one of the current term and implemented by now.
Someone awake in the Liberal camp ought to be screaming at colleagues to junk local government from the government's reform agenda. Let the next government deal with what you started.
Otherwise, throw back a couple of shots of Sake and strap in for your kamikaze flight.
