Future of councils must prioritise ‘local’ government

As Greek philosopher Heraclitus once suggested, change is the only constant in life.

The Western Australian Local Government Association’s annual conference theme of ‘embracing change’ this week reminds us how relevant the ancient can be to the contemporary.

Embracing change is something local governments have done well over the years.

Often out of necessity, and at times to proactively pursue opportunity.

As the closest level of government to the community, the need to bend, adapt, and embrace the changing nature of our communities is front and centre for successful local governance.

Just as residents within a community have the prerogative to ask new and different things of their council, so too can the state government, which we see in the form of sweeping reforms being established and implemented right now.

While roughly half of WA’s local governments face almost no change to their current electoral setup, some seventy-four councils will be forced to change.

The purpose of many reforms proposed are aimed at improving the transparency and functionality of councils, but the motivation behind altering the electoral process remains mysteriously unexplained.

While wards have seemingly fallen out of favour with the government, they remain an important tool for some to ensure the whole local government area is represented.

It is not difficult to draw parallels between forcing predominantly regional councils to remove wards at a local government level and the McGowan Labor government’s heavy-handed abolition of upper house regions.

In both cases, the changes sacrifice community identity and representation in the interest of raw population.

I have heard one of the predominant reasons for this shift in policy is that some local government areas find it difficult to garner the full complement of councillors as some wards are unable to field a candidate.

Councillors are often the cheapest resource a small council has at its disposal, so having fewer than the maximum may well be cause for reflection and perhaps reform.

If maximising the number of councillors justifies removing wards in eleven local government areas, I wonder why the state government also seeks to reduce the number of councillors in forty-eight areas.

The whole point of local government is in the name - local.

Their whole purpose is to provide communities with local representatives, a voice to speak up for them.

It is concerning that while the government reduces its presence in small communities it also strips them of the freedom to determine these structural matters for themselves.

Instead, handing many responsibilities for service delivery to local co-operatives or councils.

In a similar vein, the requirement to adopt optional preferential voting requires further explanation.

In a group election scenario – as is the case for council elections – candidates can’t all be elected by a majority of voters, regardless of how many preferences are recorded.

The shift to direct election of mayors and presidents may benefit from a full preferential system.

When it comes to the council, though, it remains unclear what benefit can be gleamed from using preferential voting except to empower group tickets.

This in turn enables partisan politics and shady preference deals into local government.

The minister claims this is not his intention but as far as I’m aware, he is yet to explain what other purpose there could be for introducing preference deals to local politics.

So far, his electoral maths doesn’t add up.

I congratulate the sector who engaged so strongly with the consultation process for this suite of reforms.

Their input has had an impact on the final product, and while questions remain on several points, it is heartening to see a such a wide-ranging reform piece delivered in a palatable form for those in the sector.

There is no more vital organisation for a community than their local council and it is imperative state and federal governments empower and strengthen local governments’ ability to continue delivering for their residents.

While councils will continue to do what they’ve always done – adapting and embracing to change as it presents itself.

One can understand why many are questioning whether the minister’s reforms represent change worth embracing.