One of the great boring mantras in Canberra in the past two decades has been, “We never wanted self-government. All we need is a town council.”
Well, in a way that is what we have got.
I know that the de rigueur view around town is to display a disdainful non-interest in the affairs of Canberra government, even though it affects most of us more profoundly than the affairs in the Big House of the Hill, and to complain bitterly about taxes, charges and services.
Next week is ACT Budget week. It is to be a mild one, according to Jon Stanhope, who is Chief Minister and Treasurer.
But he is also wears another couple of hats when he brings down the Budget. He is also Mayor, or Shire President and Shire Clerk.
The ACT, unique in Australia, has only two levels of Government. Our state and local governments are amalgamated. And we should be grateful for small mercies.
In other jurisdictions, particularly NSW, local government is suffering grievously.
So often we hear about the blame-shifting and cost shifting between state and federal levels, but it worse, if anything, between state and local levels.
NSW Governments, of whatever kind, have been able to get away with horrific planning debacles in Sydney because they have forced councils to accept higher densities or “urban consolidation”. The councils are the fall guys as they are seen to be the approval body for developments. Developers have been empowered by state governments to force councils to approve higher densities through the courts.
Under Labor, the Coalition-voting North Shore has copped it most.
That sort of blame shifting has not been available in the ACT. The state-level minister is also the town councillor. Our planning is not ideal, but electoral pressure has forced quite a bit of rethinking. Further, our electoral system does not permit large areas to be written off by one or other party in government. Our multi-member system means every part of the territory has representatives of both parties vying for re-election.
NSW councils are further hampered by a rates cap. It enables the state government to take credit for keeping the lid on rates, while the councils cop the blame for decaying infrastructure – cracked swimming pools, unsafe or closed parks, poor roads, public halls in disrepair, eroded walking tracks and ovals, libraries and harbours in poor condition. About $15 billion is needed to catch up on basic infrastructure maintenance at local government level across the nation.
The rates cap has got councils looking at other revenue sources – particularly developer levies, perhaps one of the greatest contributors to worsening housing affordability.
Another shocker for local government has been they way extra responsibilities have been foisted upon it without the money to meet them. Airports are a classic example.
True, the Federal Government helps a bit with its federal assistant grants. It also gives money for roads under schemes like the Black Spots scheme. But again the blame and boast game applies. The Federal Government insists on a sign at every black spot roadwork taking the credit leaving the councils to take the blame for all the undone work.
Moreover, the funding is not secure.
Ever since the states got the GST revenue – a secure and growing tax – local government has been the beggar.
Unfortunately, having fallen into the trap of handing the states the GST windfall, it is unlikely any federal government would hand local government a fixed portion of federal revenue, as sought by the Local Government Association.
The trouble for local government is that it is at the mercy of the states. It is not recognised in the Constitution. All local government in Australia could be removed at the stroke of a legislative pen by the states.
Yet, often local government is more representative than the other levels.
We are about to get a better insight into the woes, efficiency and effectiveness of local government. The Productivity Commission is looking at it. Submissions have to be in by July 6.
It may be they are taking on too much – delving into welfare and human services rather than sticking to roads, buildings and water.
Something should give. In an ideal world, local government should be done on a proper footing with power and money to match the responsibility and an end to blame and cost shifting. Any idea of abolishing the states or getting rid of local government and replacing it with regional government is not really workable in a place like Australia.
Nearly all geographically large places are federations of sorts, usually with several levels of government: The US, Canada, Brazil, Russia and India are examples.
The oddity of the ACT almost proves the point. We can do with just two levels of government here because (comparatively) it is a short drive from London Circuit to Outer Tuggeranong. Geography makes an idea of local government in the ACT laughable. But you cannot run Broome from Perth or Alice Springs from Darwin.
Even in fairly compact Victoria, council amalgamations (regionalisation) in the late 1990s proved inefficient and so unpopular they drove the Kennett Government from office.
Whereas in the ACT on Tuesday, Shire President Stanhope will take the praise and the blame for education, health, garbage collection and public pools. Geography allows it.
In the other seven jurisdictions they have got a lot of work ahead to make local government work better.