By Rod Mitchell
“What thousands of Victorians told us is that councils need to urgently focus on core services”.
“Victorians want their local councils focused on local issues and high-quality service delivery. Local services and solutions are what Victorians want, not global and international issues” – Council Watch president Dean Hurlston.
The Premise
For most of us, councils are about delivering on the three basic tenants of Rates, Roads, and Rubbish (the three Rs). In that remit comes maintenance of our infrastructure, streets, parks, removal of graffiti and ensuring any build meets the regulatory code. This also means responsive planning departments that keep projects moving, not deferred until VCAT takes the lead.
Similarly in a society with three tiers of government, there should be an understanding of the separation of responsibilities.
A recent Council Watch survey asked respondents to rank where they see council priorities. Not surprisingly, the most important priority was maintenance of roads, footpaths and parks, and rubbish collection.
Any council that goes outside the basic remit, will ipso facto mean less focus on core responsibilities with more resources allocated to non-core services. When councillors do diverge from the basic remit, you can be sure that rate payer anger will rise as service delivery is sacrificed on the basic remit. Hence the current disappointment at council delivery readily seen in surveys and community complaint channels.
Focussing on the basic remit by councils becomes even more a priority with a backdrop of a cost-of-living crisis where each dollar received by council needs to be spent prudently and efficiently. This also means a focus on downward pressure on rate increases and systematic reviews of current Council expenditure.
Council Survey
Recently council engaged in yet another community phone survey on gauging their performance. This is not unusual with public institutions and large companies that utilise these types of services as a reality check on their own performance including highlighting areas for improvement. However, having said this, with the current low level of community support for councils in general and some serious unresolved issues within our own council, was it really necessary to obtain community feedback on what we all know are the problematic issues facing the City of Port Phillip?
In a recent letter to the Residents of Port Phillip I pointed out, “A proper plan for rejuvenation of our urban centres and high streets including a focus on the basic remit, sells itself.” If Council wants to improve its performance ratings in surveys, then focus on the basic remit. Do that well and the rate payer will be eternally grateful. Recently Arron Wood the former deputy lord mayor of the City of Melbourne eloquently put it like this “you get the licence to aim for the stars by first ensuring you have taken care of any mess at the street level.”
Secondly the survey costs should be public knowledge. Residents have a right to know what is being spent on these surveys, and results should be published in the community magazine known as Divercity. This means all the survey responses, the good the bad and the ugly, not cherry picking what looks good in the eyes of Council officers.
Thirdly the problematic question in the survey relates to the question which goes something like this “Would you prefer lower rates and less services or higher rates and more services”. This raises the following general response depending on who is the targeted audience in the survey:
- If you are a resident and not a ratepayer of course you are comfortable with a higher level of services, after all you are not footing the bill. The “free rider” effect.
- If you are a ratepayer, you could reasonably have a different view, wanting lower rates and a commensurate reduction in services.
A Realistic Third Way
However, it does not have to be as binary as the above question suggests. A further possibility could also be canvassed. What about a reprioritisation/ reorganisation of council remit, including increases in service delivery on the basic remit and a corresponding decrease in non-core council activities?
This could also be part of a serious productivity review leading to a real efficiency dividend, not the laughable one done last year in council which resulted in a review finding less than $100,000 in savings in a budget of $250 million.
Cost saving measures could include:
- A reduction in use of consultants.
- Cease funding the East Timor project.
- Reduce the purchase of art. The CoPP currently has more than $18 million in art works, most of which are stored.
- Benchmarks that bring current high staff ratios within the CoPP in line with other councils through a natural staff attrition program. That is doing more with less combined with reducing non-core services while elevating core responsibilities.
The important point is that if Council wants to have a serious lift in community support, then they need to read the tea leaves. Not talk fests, focus groups, consultants, or deliberation weekends. Just a serious reform agenda, including key benchmarks that reflect what is happening in more cost-effective, service delivery orientated councils. It will not happen by sitting in the comfortable “safe space” they now occupy with meetings at the Galleon and endless navel gazing.
