This is not some hospital board or Rotary.

It's the third tier of government in Australia.

It's up there with the cornerstones of our democracy.

It's a community big deal and should be afforded the status of a major ruling body in Australia.

Community polls in affected regions is just a means for the state to pick winners and pick off recalcitrant councils.

Clearly the government is aware of how this has gone for previous minority state Liberal governments.

Amalgamation cost the Rundle government the election in 1998 after it let the Local Government Board come up recommendations for fewer councils, which took a whole year and allowed Labor to run one of the longest scare campaigns in history.

The last time council numbers were reduced substantially was in 1993 with a reduction of 46 councils to 29.

No wonder it's been 30 years since any government dared go there.

The referendum could exclude Flinders and King Island councils because there's no need for change there.

The government may argue that community polls are more focussed and less expensive, but local government is a vital part of our community across Australia.

So the Constitution Act 1934 allows the minister to do what they like, based on recommendations of the Local Government Board.

In this instance the board has come up with a review and model for 15 greater councils and in a limp sort of way, suggested local elector polls start an organic way of achieving reform, from the ground up.

So electors can petition for reform but this is a charade from a state government frozen in fear of a municipal backlash.

Every mainland Tasmanian council is affected in some way by this attempt at reform. Time for a referendum.

I once was a keen advocate of amalgamation because we seemed so over governed everywhere, from Parliament to semi-government authorities like Taswater.

But blow it. We are a sovereign state. We ought not be shrinking violets when it comes to the cost of public service.

It doesn't mean we don't curb the largesse or curb our spending, but it does mean our population is just as entitled to the services enjoyed by our cousins interstate.

Philosophically we ought to apply the same criteria as applied to the size of Parliament.

When they cut 14 seats out of the Parliament in 1998 they cut our representation.

It was a hit on democracy. If you are going to slash the number of councils from 29 to 15 the same consequences apply.

Our representation at an even more acute coal face of democracy is again diminished.

This is not some ethereal political science rubbish.

If you cut the number of councils you cut the number of councillors and aldermen.

You create municipal silos across the state, making it easier for the state government to exert its power.

Actually, if I had my way I would abolish state governments, but that's another story.

I was surprised the Local Government Board review did not closely examine the financial plight of each council, which may have even strengthened the argument for reform.

The Audit Office could have done it for them as it does from time to time.

I wanted the finances included so that we could have a proper conversation about the health of our democracies and how best to make our service delivery more efficient and equitable.

For instance, land tax versus rates.

Fines, fees and charges and the provision of road funding, duplication of service delivery, national park and world heritage management, all manner of services and costs that could be measured against better outcomes.

The referendum question could be simple. Do you agree with the proposal to reduce the number of municipal councils in the state from 29 to 15?

I predict now that the No case would prevail. But hey, that's what a referendum is all about.

The government could then use the results to determine if there are regions where reform is more likely, and hence conduct a community poll.

A referendum gets the monkey off the Liberals' back. Nobody could then accuse them of riding roughshod over community wishes.

I think many people are publicly altruistic about local government and would like to see some efficiencies such as more resource sharing, which incidentally the Board believes the Minister should proceed with resource sharing regardless of any vote, and I agree.

Resource sharing does not compromise a council's independence or sovereignty and naturally can make councils much more efficient.

So the government can likely point to past votes, plebiscites or whatever to say the will of the people has been tested. I disagree.

A shakeup of municipal boundaries to this extent will reshape community life in the state, it will rearrange if not change the way we are governed and alter the state and local power balance.

It deserves a referendum.