Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Thursday 11 June 2009

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD) BILL 2009

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Interestingly, in the second reading speech the Leader referred to local government having the opportunity to go to the board to ask for certain issues to be reviewed or to be considered and the example given was the reduction in council numbers.

Mr Parkinson - Councillor numbers.

Mr DEAN - Councillor numbers, aldermen numbers.

Mr Parkinson - Not the council numbers.

Mr DEAN - Councillor numbers. Well, in the Launceston City Council -

Mr Parkinson - That is why I emphasised the 'or' when I was reading it out.

Mr DEAN - Interestingly, about three meetings ago I moved a motion in the Launceston City Council for a consideration of a reduction in their numbers -

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - You're are a rebel raiser.

Mr DEAN - No, I am not. There is nothing rebellious about that in any way at all because it needs to be done from time to time. When I put that motion up it was ridiculed by the Greens member in the Launceston City Council - absolutely ridiculed - and it did not even get off first base. There is a lot of self-interest in these issues, unfortunately, when they are being debated and that seems to take priority in lots of discussions that occur in relation to amalgamations as well and in relation to council numbers.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - I thought it was called 'protecting your own'.

Mr DEAN - Is that what it is.

The issue is the one that I continually raise in this House and that is that the councillors, aldermen in some of the councils, do not get an opportunity to look at these bills. I do not know whose responsibility it is to ensure that that happens, whether it is for LGAT or whether it is for each individual council to ensure that that happens. In this instance we heard from the ex-president of LGAT that there was a process and that he was happy with the situation at the time but I would be surprised if many councillors were aware of this amendment and it does impact on them. It impacts on the council of which they are a part. I do not know whose responsibility it is but in that regard I did move a motion in our council recently and it was resolved that in future the corporate secretary has a responsibility to keep a close eye on the notice papers going through both Houses to ensure that if there is anything on them in relation to local government it is brought to the attention of that council in particular. I do not know where the other councils are going.

Mr Hall - I would have thought - through you, Madam President - that most councils would be provided with a briefing report because we used to at the Meander Valley, by the general manager, for all councillors in between council meetings, which covers off on some of these issues.

Mr DEAN - I do not know whether that is happening there or not.

Mr Hall - It does. Probably Launceston needs to get a bit more efficient on some of these systems.

Mr DEAN - Maybe it does because there are not too many issues coming through to the councillors for their discussion.

To remove the set period of a council review every eight years is fraught with danger. If you take notice of the Auditor-General's reports, councils have a number of issues and in each one of the reports that the Auditor-General has done in recent times involving local government, he has raised a number of issues regarding sustainability of some councils and their ongoing financial positions. Water and sewerage will, in some instances, place an extra responsibility on local government to raise the funds that they need to continue providing the services that they must provide.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - That is one the issues that Glenorchy has been very concerned about.

Mr DEAN - Yes. The point that I now make is are we now likely to see these reviews done after the Attorney-General identifies a problem with the council, or after some adverse finding or event involving a particular council service? When are we likely to see these reviews take place? Currently, councils understand and accept the position that every eight years they will be reviewed. As I said, when will councils now expect to be reviewed? I know that they can ask for a review and the public can petition a council for a review, I understand all of that.

Some people would recall that three or fours years ago I raised a lot of issues in relation to the mental health establishment at Launceston, Ward 1E, when there were lots of problems in that department. Many of those problems were identified through the fact that that department had not been reviewed or audited. Ever! It was either never or so long ago that nobody could remember when that department had been reviewed or audited. Hence the many problems that it was experiencing at the time. The Government accepted when I questioned them during one Estimates process that yes, audits and reviews needed to be done and they needed to be done on a fairly regular basis.

That was a situation that should never have occurred. So will we see that sort of a situation arising with local government? We do not want to see local government, in my opinion, missing out on opportunities for outside reviews of their practices. In fact most councils would welcome an outside review of what they are doing, the provision of their services and their financial position. They do not push that off, it is not as though they do not want it; they like that to be done. Most councils are doing the right thing, they have their finances in place, they are sustainably moving forward and they are doing good things by the community.

Mr Parkinson - How come water was in such a mess with so many of them?

Madam PRESIDENT - Order. It has no relationship to the bill.

Mr DEAN - We have debated that before. Because of the failure of some local governments to address the situation in the right manner.

Mr Parkinson - Not Launceston.

Mr DEAN - Not the Launceston City Council. The Launceston City Council were in a good position. Once again they have embraced this new concept. They are moving forward with it. Some other councils are not and are resisting it but the Launceston City Council has gone forward to try to make sure that it does work and will work as of 1 July.

Mr Gaffney - Doesn't the stormwater go into the sewerage system?

Mr DEAN - In Launceston they have a combined sewerage and stormwater system.

Mr Gaffney - A unique system?

Mr DEAN - Not unique because I was told that Queenstown has a similar system but it is reasonably unique. Launceston City Council was the first council in Australia to have an underground stormwater and sewerage system.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - That was because everything was falling apart underneath and they had to.

Mr DEAN - No, it was just that they were very innovative and they had the foresight back then, in 1806 or whenever it was, to take that on and do that.

Mr Gaffney - It's a pity they couldn't have fixed the siltation problem at the same time, isn't it?

Madam PRESIDENT - Order. Can we go back to the issue at hand, which is changes to the Local Government Board. We are straying to some degree.

Mr DEAN - I was side-tracked.

Madam PRESIDENT - Very easily too, I might note.

Mr DEAN - I took the bait. Councils do not normally resist these reviews. They enjoy these reviews, they like these reviews because it identifies in most instances that they are doing things well and that things are going right. They appreciate getting advice from time to time on things that they could change to make their system and their services better. They do not resist that at all. So I have some concerns now with the removal of the eight years, whether or not those reviews will occur at the right time and before a council gets into trouble, whether it be through finances or some other method or means. I think it is something that needs to be closely watched and considered.

I am not quite sure why there is the need for the reduction in the board from five to four members but I do notice that the general manager for the Launceston City Council has just been appointed as a substitute member on the Local Government Board. It is pleasing to see that occur because he is a man of substance, he is a man of foresight and he will do well on that board if and when he is needed. In fact, without any doubt, in my opinion, he is one of the most astute members within local government in a general manager's role right at this very moment. I have great admiration for Frank Dixon.

Having said that, I would hope that those reviews do take place on a reasonably regular basis and that councils do get the support of the board in the conducting of those reviews from time to time. I am not sure how it will be done, I would like to know how it will be done; whether the board will simply do a review on information it receives if things are not going well within a council, or will they simply pluck a council out every now and again and do a review of it? It will be interesting to see just how it operates. Currently, the system has been that every eight years a council has expected to be reviewed; now that will be removed, moving forward.

I am not quite sure at this stage whether I should even support the bill.

Return To Main Page.

Return To Speeches.