The South Australian Political Landscape

[Jimmy_041]

I am yet to be convinced about rate capping. Not sure how rate capping stops those persons responsible for wasteful spending, golf memberships as an example, from still doing it. It simply decreases or caps the rate collection.

It doesn't. It's a utterly stupid policy.

But it'll appease the feeble minded and/or those that don't understand Local Government.

Point proven

That the state Liberals produce policies that dont actually achieve anything? But the appeasement of trust fund babies and the old boys club of Adelaide, of course.

Then yeah, point proven.

If we want to reduce costs at the local government level, then do something like:

All major projects over $500k to be reviewed and signed off by an independent panel. Like the DAP. Would save millions.

You really should change your name from morell to Dunning–Kruger

[Ronnie]

A current Unley Councillor, in a letter to a media outlet, described feeling like "I was in a lolly shop with unlimited money" when debating how much to raise rates by. During the tenure he refers to, over an 8 year period, rates rose by 46%.

[Trader]

A current Unley Councillor, in a letter to a media outlet, described feeling like "I was in a lolly shop with unlimited money" when debating how much to raise rates by. During the tenure he refers to, over an 8 year period, rates rose by 46%.

Between 2000 and 2008 inflation was 34%, add in a bit more for the transfer of services from State to Local Govt over the same period and you get 46%.

[Jimmy_041]

A current Unley Councillor, in a letter to a media outlet, described feeling like "I was in a lolly shop with unlimited money" when debating how much to raise rates by. During the tenure he refers to, over an 8 year period, rates rose by 46%.

The perfect nightmare: pompous civil servants with unfettered access to funds.
Of course they want no transparency or accountability

[morell]

It doesn't. It's a utterly stupid policy.

But it'll appease the feeble minded and/or those that don't understand Local Government.

Point proven

That the state Liberals produce policies that dont actually achieve anything? But the appeasement of trust fund babies and the old boys club of Adelaide, of course.

Then yeah, point proven.

If we want to reduce costs at the local government level, then do something like:

All major projects over $500k to be reviewed and signed off by an independent panel. Like the DAP. Would save millions.

You really should change your name from morell to Dunning–Kruger

haaa! Based on that unsolicited personal attack that must've hit close to the bone.

So which one is it? Trust fund baby or member of Adelaide boys club? Or both?

Since you seem to be struggling to understand the argument. I'm not against minimising local government expenditure, I'm arguing specifically against rate capping as the method to do so.

[Ronnie]

A current Unley Councillor, in a letter to a media outlet, described feeling like "I was in a lolly shop with unlimited money" when debating how much to raise rates by. During the tenure he refers to, over an 8 year period, rates rose by 46%.

Between 2000 and 2008 inflation was 34%, add in a bit more for the transfer of services from State to Local Govt over the same period and you get 46%.

I'm not sure exactly what period he is referring to, although I think very recent.
I've got no idea whether he went with the flow or stood up against some of the proposed rises. What I do know is that, with the advent of the new State Govt, the tunes some of them are playing are changing. One councilor, totally opposed to rate capping, believes Unley Council has to drop it's opposition if it is to receive project money from the State. Presumably they will leave the public fight to the LGA.

[heater31]

[quote="morell"]
It doesn't. It's a utterly stupid policy.

But it'll appease the feeble minded and/or those that don't understand Local Government.

Point proven

That the state Liberals produce policies that dont actually achieve anything? But the appeasement of trust fund babies and the old boys club of Adelaide, of course.

Then yeah, point proven.

If we want to reduce costs at the local government level, then do something like:

All major projects over $500k to be reviewed and signed off by an independent panel. Like the DAP. Would save millions.

You really should change your name from morell to Dunning–Kruger

haaa! Based on that unsolicited personal attack that must've hit close to the bone.

So which one is it? Trust fund baby or member of Adelaide boys club? Or both?

Since you seem to be struggling to understand the argument. I'm not against minimising local government expenditure, I'm arguing specifically against rate capping as the method to do so.[/quote]So how do you propose local government stretches their dollars further? Clearly current methods are not working.

[morell]

So how do you propose local government stretches their dollars further? Clearly current methods are not working.

Urgh. Liberals and their naff ideas. Their latest one is rate capping. Yes! Rate capping! That’s a grand idea!

No. It’s naff. And a waste of time.

I wish they would call it what it actually is. Rate *increase* Capping. Your rates are not going to go down, nor are they going to even plateau. They’re just going to increase ever so slightly less. Maybe. Unless the council can prove it needs more, which of course the majority of the time it will be able to. The Council I work for is putting up a 3.6% rate increase, that equates to $64 bucks a year more for the average household in our district. Should rate capping come in, that would be at CPI (~2%) I believe, which would mean the increase would be more like $35.

So all this hubbub, all this popularity dog whistling “were easing the cost of living!” is all to potentially save about $35 a year. And I repeat, if we use the NSW model this cap only applies if the Council can’t prove it needs more money. Trust me, that’s a pretty straight forward exercise.

Just as absurd as the minimal impact this policy will have on the lives of home owners, is the complete lack of understanding about how rates are calculated. I swear, the LGA should run ads explaining this.

Rates are called “rates” rather than a tax because they are calculated using a “rate in the dollar”, that rate in the dollar is calculated by adding up all of the years expenses, operational and capital, and then dividing it by the total value of the housing stock in the area (based on the state govs valuations). That figure is then used to multiply against the individual house value, to determine that years rates for that household.

RID = tHV / tB

iR = RID * iHV

RID = Rate in Dollar
tHV = Total House Value
tB = Total Budget
iR = Individual Rates
iHV – Individual House Value

So. If we want to reduce individual rates, how would we do it?

Reduce the rate in the dollar. How do we reduce the rate in the dollar?

Reduce the divisor. What’s the divisor? The total budget.

How do we reduce the total budget? Cut services.

But of course, that wouldn’t be politically kosher.

If we really want to reduce rates, and believe me I do, we have to look at the services Local Government are delivering, and:

1. Shift some of those services to a more efficient sphere of government (often back to where they should belong – such as environmental health and social programs)
2. Change the funding model to a user pays system – want to use the library? Chip in. Want a Youth program? Chip in.
3. Reduce the amount of large regional asset construction.
4. All of the above.

Specifically on #3. There is no way on gods green earth Local Government should be constructing, implementing and managing multimillion dollar regional infrastructure projects. That is where the true cost savings are.

If we did all of those things, the rates bill, based on some rudimentary calcs I did, would drop by 30%. Hundreds of dollars a year for your average household. We could then look at operating cost reduction (wages) through natural attrition and voluntary redundancies and the savings would be astronomical.

So, don’t buy the bullshit Liberal spin, they’re pissing down your neck and telling you it’s raining.

[am Bays]

[Trader]

So how do you propose local government stretches their dollars further? Clearly current methods are not working.

Amalgamations. The fact that a place like Walkerville has 8,000 residents and has a similar management structure to Onkaparinga is baffling.

Remove the "no redundancies" clauses from all local government EBs. Stop people getting permanency then simply doing nothing for the next 20 years.

Removal all council depots, they are a cesspool of inefficiency. Contract out work to businesses working for profit.

Appoint some CEO's who are willing to fight the media. The fact that they are sh!t scared of any bad publicity leads to poor decision making and a blame shifting culture, rather than getting on with it. You see Council's spending 25k to justify a $5,000 decision in case the media gets a hold of it. Local government is full of people who have been taught that making no decision is safer than making a decision, on the off chance it turns out wrong.

Delete managers. You have CEO, GM/Director, Manager, Team leader/Coordinator, Officer. You don't need 5 layers. Cut out the managers, all they do is pass information and don't deliver anything.

Cut the community programs. Get back to Roads, Rates and Rubbish and leave it there. The fact that some council's employ people literally to work down a list of old people in their council area and ring them once a week to check they haven't died yet is a joke.

[morell]

Amalgamations. The fact that a place like Walkerville has 8,000 residents and has a similar management structure to Onkaparinga is baffling.

Doesn't work. Proven countless times. You just create a more inefficient bureaucracy. Lots of research done in this space and there is a "sweet spot" but it's much smaller than many think. Also have to reflect what the community in that area actually wants. If they're willing to pay those managers, as a community, then so be it.

Remove the "no redundancies" clauses from all local government EBs. Stop people getting permanency then simply doing nothing for the next 20 years.

Also doesn't work. Creates a workplace and climate that is focused on self preservation instead of outcomes. Actually drops efficiency.

Some conditions for voluntary redundancy could be reduced but it's a drop in the ocean.

Remove all council depots, they are a cesspool of inefficiency. Contract out work to businesses working for profit.

Can work in the right environment eg waste collection. Services requiring local knowledge and experience however... would just create more inefficiency and in fact can raise the burden on ratepayers.

Appoint some CEO's who are willing to fight the media. The fact that they are sh!t scared of any bad publicity leads to poor decision making and a blame shifting culture, rather than getting on with it. You see Council's spending 25k to justify a $5,000 decision in case the media gets a hold of it. Local government is full of people who have been taught that making no decision is safer than making a decision, on the off chance it turns out wrong.

Wholeheartedly 100% agree. It's absurd the amount spent on protecting image.

Delete managers. You have CEO, GM/Director, Manager, Team leader/Coordinator, Officer. You don't need 5 layers. Cut out the managers, all they do is pass information and don't deliver anything.

Depends. Increasing the burden on GMs to manage staff would mean less time focused on strategic matters.

Cut the community programs. Get back to Roads, Rates and Rubbish and leave it there. The fact that some council's employ people literally to work down a list of old people in their council area and ring them once a week to check they haven't died yet is a joke.

100% Wholeheartedly agree.

Add:

Transfer large civil engineering expansion projects to regional authorities and / or state government. Anything over $500k shouldn't be delivered by LG unless there are extenuating circumstances.

[Trader]

Transfer large civil engineering expansion projects to regional authorities and / or state government. Anything over $500k shouldn't be delivered by LG unless there are extenuating circumstances.

$500k is nothing.

1km of road costs $1,000,000 to build.

[morell]

Transfer large civil engineering expansion projects to regional authorities and / or state government. Anything over $500k shouldn't be delivered by LG unless there are extenuating circumstances.

$500k is nothing.

1km of road costs $1,000,000 to build.

Maybe if you get glorified excel manipulators managing it!! I'd have that at more around the $700k mark.

But yep, if there is a $1m road expansion project, I don't think Local Government should be building that road. Should be DPTI to build and then gifted to LG to depreciate and renew.

[Dogwatcher]

Appoint some CEO's who are willing to fight the media. The fact that they are sh!t scared of any bad publicity leads to poor decision making and a blame shifting culture, rather than getting on with it. You see Council's spending 25k to justify a $5,000 decision in case the media gets a hold of it. Local government is full of people who have been taught that making no decision is safer than making a decision, on the off chance it turns out wrong.

Wholeheartedly 100% agree. It's absurd the amount spent on protecting image.

Onka is the lightning rod for rate capping and it could be argued that their CEO has been willing to fight the media.
The bloke, if the media had had their way, would have resigned months ago. But he's said "stuff it, we'll work through this, I'm not quitting just because the media is baying at the door".
I'm not saying what they've done is right, but he's doing exactly what you've advocated.

FWIW, a good comms teams at a council:

A) Is not just about defending Council decisions, but advocating, promoting and talking to the community. Their role means people learn about the programs and role that Council plays, rather than the lazy belief that "council does nothing for me".
B) Would not, generally, allow a situation to get so bad that it needs to spend money "justifying a decision".

[morell]

You're right Dogwatcher.

I think Trader and I were more talking from the angle of indecisive nature of LG creating a back log of process and work, more than the communication side.

As a real-life example I'm dealing with right now.

Lady crossed road. Hit by car. Died. Road is DPTIs, footpath, kerb and fencing ours. Its a major informal crossing that doesn't meet any sort of safety standards. I've proposed to close off using some fencing and sign pedestrians 20m up the road to use the refuge.

I was just going to pop into the businesses, explain and follow up with a letter. But nope. I need to do a formal report. Get an independent consultant to support my findings. Go through a formal consultation process.

Something that should take a week will now take a month, because we're scared of doing something wrong.

[Dogwatcher]

I see what you're saying, but can you blame people for being scared about doing something wrong?

Look at the Onkawatch FB page and see the way people communicate and you'll see why some might be scared to act decisively.
When you're wrong, you're wrong and when you're right you're wrong. People are very rarely informed or rational when debating these issues. They never actually pursue their concern and find out why and when they do, it is very often in an aggressive manner.

I'm very much an advocate for open communications and council's being a lot louder about what they actually do (and I have been throughout my professional career). Secrecy is BS, but sometimes you can see why people go down that path.
For example, councils should tell people about their roadworks and not be afraid about criticism of delays or locations etc, as a good comms team will use that as an opportunity to inform the community about what it's doing and why. Too often, they don't share that information and let unfair criticism go unchallenged.
You also have to be accepting that sometimes, just sometimes, you or your staff stuff-up and you have to own that as well.

[morell]

Yeah spot on. Risk aversion pretty much. It really does limit efficiency.

This is why I get pissy when insignificant shit is complained about. Like the previous 10 pages.

There are so many things which can improve but get ignored. Then we're spending stupid amounts of time covering bums and fussing over decisions.

If people didn't sweat about the insignificant shit and look to every opportunity to leap on every minutiae or perceived "public sector waste" like our friend Jimmy here, then we'd be much more capable of spending time and money wisely.

Perhaps counter intuitively, the very forces trying to make LG more efficient end up causing the opposite.

[morell]

For example, councils should tell people about their roadworks and not be afraid about criticism of delays or locations etc, as a good comms team will use that as an opportunity to inform the community about what it's doing and why. Too often, they don't share that information and let unfair criticism go unchallenged.
You also have to be accepting that sometimes, just sometimes, you or your staff stuff-up and you have to own that as well.

Just on this.

Absolutely freaking agree. Been a long time bone of contention of mine.

I'm looking at releasing all of my captial programs online by EOFY in the form of both an interactive map and through Bang the Table. It's a must.

[Jimmy_041]

Yeah spot on. Risk aversion pretty much. It really does limit efficiency.

This is why I get pissy when insignificant shit is complained about. Like the previous 10 pages.

There are so many things which can improve but get ignored. Then we're spending stupid amounts of time covering bums and fussing over decisions.

If people didn't sweat about the insignificant shit and look to every opportunity to leap on every minutiae or perceived "public sector waste" like our friend Jimmy here, then we'd be much more capable of spending time and money wisely.

Perhaps counter intuitively, the very forces trying to make LG more efficient end up causing the opposite.

Like doing the legal shit, transparency and accountability.
Yep, we've already established your contempt for it
Of course, the councils will jump on every ratepayer if they did the same thing

[morell]

No, transparency and accountability about the big stuff and important issues/projects. Leaving resources to make them as effective as possible.

Instead of appeasing people with no lives and too much time on their hands.

Clearly, you're still struggling with the concept the sensible people are discussing.