Caleb Bond: Cut councillor numbers, but let’s investigate amalgamations
Cutting councillor numbers to save money is a sensible local government reform, writes Caleb Bond. Next, Stephan Knoll should look into cutting the number of councils.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Plan to cap councillor numbers and CEO salaries to cut costs
- How to make the most out of your Advertiser subscription
What a surprise that councils with lots of councillors would be opposed to having the number of councillors cut.
Turkeys might not vote for Christmas but ratepayers sometimes vote for turkeys.
Plenty of other people lost their jobs because of COVID-19. God knows why they think they should be immune.
The State Government wants to cut the maximum number of councillors in any jurisdiction to 12. It seems a fair number. How many people can you possibly need on the board of a corporation (and yes, councils are corporations)? But councils such as Port Adelaide Enfield, which has 18 elected members, say that to reduce the number would be some kind of affront to democracy.
The government has also suggested other sensible reforms such as capping council chief executive salaries and cracking down on bad behaviour by councillors.
I have no doubt most councillors want to do the right thing by their community. And having covered Port Adelaide Enfield, I know they are largely a decent, hardworking lot. But what makes them think a larger group of councillors leads to better representation?
Sure, if you had a councillor to represent every individual street, your problems would probably be talked about more. But it wouldn’t make the process any more efficient. The opposite, in fact.
Councils often combat reform with the argument that they are the closest level of government to people, so their “homely” feel needs to be protected at all costs.
Most people, however, have little contact with their council – even less their councillors.
You need only look at the fact just 30 per cent of people vote in council elections as proof of that.
It’s cliche – but they want the bins emptied, their rates low, a footpath to walk on and a nice park to entertain their children. Roads, rates and rubbish.
It is immaterial to most people whether they have 12 or 24 councillors. On the odd occasion they want to contact someone, they’re not going to notice how many representatives there are so long as someone is there.
The western suburbs alone – Port Adelaide Enfield, Holdfast Bay, West Torrens and Charles Sturt – have 63 councillors between them.
Meanwhile, both houses of state parliament have a combined 69 representatives to cover the whole state.
Parliamentarians are well compensated for their jobs but there cannot honestly be a need for that many people to represent just one slice of Adelaide.
The real reason councils are opposed to reducing councillor numbers is that they do not want to cede any ground to the government.
They know that, once the hurdle of cutting councillors has been cleared, the next discussion will be about cutting councils themselves.
If Local Government Minister Stephan Knoll has the guts to really take on councils, he’ll at least put amalgamation on the table.
And again, the local government sector will argue that amalgamations will hurt councils because they won’t be so close to ratepayers.
But people don’t want councils in their lives. They generally don’t want any level of government in their lives. As long as they get what they pay for in their rates and taxes, and it’s delivered in a reasonably efficient and competent fashion, people will not have complaints.
One of Adelaide’s last councils not to amalgamate, Walkerville, is possibly the best argument for increasing its size.
Its chief executive is paid about $240,000 a year to look after 30 staff and essentially one suburb.
Burnside Council’s boss, meanwhile, is paid about the same amount of money, yet has a far larger area to look after and about five times the staff.
Tell me, notwithstanding Burnside’s own perennial issues, which one seems like better value?
Studies have shown significant savings for ratepayers. But if they won’t even save on councillors, what hope have we got?