With the 2026 Tasmanian Local Government elections approaching, ratepayers have an opportunity to ask a fairly simple question of every candidate seeking their vote:
What is local government actually for?
It is an important question because, over the past four years, across a number of council areas, the public has watched councils become increasingly distracted by issues that have little to do with the core business of local government.
Local government is supposed to be about local issues.
It is about roads, footpaths, drainage, rubbish and waste management, planning, community facilities, local parks and reserves, animal control, local development and the many other practical services that affect people's everyday lives.
These things may not always be exciting. They may not generate headlines or passionate social media debates.
But they are the reason councils exist.
Back to the basics
There is nothing wrong with councils having broader interests or supporting their communities in areas beyond their statutory responsibilities. Councils are an important part of the fabric of their communities and can play a valuable role in advocacy.
But there is a difference between advocating on an issue and allowing that issue to consume disproportionate amounts of council time, money and attention.
Over the last four years, ratepayers in multiple council areas have seen examples of councils spending considerable energy on matters that are not central to their responsibilities, while more basic issues continue to generate complaints.
That should concern us.
A council that cannot consistently maintain its roads, manage its infrastructure, provide reliable basic services and deliver projects effectively should be very cautious about taking on additional causes and responsibilities.
Before asking what else council can do, councillors should be asking:
"Are we doing the things we are already responsible for well?"
That should be the starting point for every council budget, every strategic plan and every election.
Ratepayers aren't cash cows
Perhaps the biggest challenge facing local government in 2026 is the rising cost of doing business.
Councils are facing increasing costs for labour, materials, insurance, energy, contracts and infrastructure. These pressures are real, and pretending otherwise would be irresponsible.
But there is an equally important reality:
"Ratepayers cannot simply be treated as an unlimited source of additional revenue."
Anyone who runs a household budget understands the problem. If your expenses increase, you have three broad choices:
Increase your income.
Find ways to become more efficient.
Reduce or change what you spend money on.
Local government needs to apply exactly the same discipline.
Increasing rates will inevitably be part of the conversation. But it should not automatically be the answer.
A council shouldn't simply look at a 5% increase in its costs and conclude that rates need to increase by 5%.
It needs to ask where those additional costs have come from.
Can services be delivered more efficiently?
Are there opportunities to reduce administrative overheads?
Are there projects that can be delayed, redesigned or cancelled?
Are there services that could be delivered differently?
Are council assets being managed efficiently?
Are there activities that council has taken on that are not actually core council responsibilities?
And, importantly, are ratepayers receiving value for the money they are already paying?
Sometimes the answer will genuinely be that rates need to increase. Sometimes the answer will be efficiency. Sometimes it will mean reducing or changing services. Often, it will require a combination of all three.
What shouldn't be acceptable is treating rate increases as an automatic annual adjustment with little meaningful examination of what council is spending.
The councillor sideshow
There is another issue that has become increasingly difficult to ignore.
In some councils, the personalities of individual councillors and the way they interact with each other have become almost a sideshow in their own right.
Public disagreements, personal conflicts, accusations, legal threats, social media battles and ongoing disputes can dominate attention that should instead be focused on council business. Disagreement is not inherently bad. In fact, good government requires disagreement.
Councillors should challenge proposals. They should ask difficult questions. They should scrutinise spending. They should hold each other and council officers to account.
But there is a significant difference between healthy political debate and dysfunction. When personal relationships, grudges and political manoeuvring begin to dominate council meetings, the community loses.
Ratepayers don't elect councillors to spend four years fighting with each other. They elect them to make decisions. Sometimes those decisions will be unpopular. Sometimes councillors will lose votes. Sometimes they will have to compromise. Sometimes they will have to accept that their preferred option wasn't supported by the majority. That is how representative government is supposed to work.
Dysfunction has a cost
The consequences of dysfunctional councils extend beyond embarrassing council meetings or unpleasant headlines.
Dysfunction costs money. It consumes staff time. It consumes councillor time. It creates delays. It can result in additional legal costs. It can damage staff morale. It can make recruitment and retention more difficult. Most importantly, it distracts everyone from the actual work of running a council.
Every hour spent dealing with unnecessary internal conflict is an hour that isn't being spent discussing roads, infrastructure, planning, community facilities, financial sustainability or service delivery.
And when legal threats become part of the normal political process, the community has every right to ask: How much is this costing ratepayers?
That question should be asked every time.
Local government isn't state or federal government
There is also an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in local government politics. Councillors are not state or federal parliamentarians.They don't need to solve every problem facing society.
There are issues that matter deeply to people that are properly the responsibility of state or federal government. Councils can advocate. They can make submissions. They can work with other levels of government. They can support their communities.
But there needs to be discipline about where council's resources and attention are directed. A councillor shouldn't need to have an opinion on everything.
They need to have a strong understanding of what their council is responsible for and a willingness to make sure those responsibilities are being delivered properly.
What should voters look for in 2026?
This election shouldn't simply be about who is the most visible candidate, who has the strongest social media presence or who can generate the most outrage.
Ratepayers should be looking for people who can actually govern. People who can read and understand a budget, who understand that every dollar spent by council ultimately comes from the community.
People who can disagree without turning disagreement into a personal war.
People who can accept losing a vote and move on.
People who are prepared to ask whether council is delivering value.
People who understand the difference between a council's responsibilities and those of other levels of government.
And perhaps most importantly, people who are prepared to put the interests of the entire municipality ahead of their own personality, ego or political agenda.
A simple challenge for the next council
The 2026 election provides an opportunity to reset.
The next council should start with some fairly simple principles:
Focus on core responsibilities.
Spend ratepayer money as though it were your own.
Look for efficiencies before automatically increasing revenue.
Be transparent about difficult financial decisions.
Deliver the basics well.
Debate issues, not personalities.
Keep personal disputes out of council business.
Stop wasting time and money on unnecessary conflict.
And perhaps above all:
Remember who you work for.
Councillors don't own council.
Council doesn't own the community.
The facilities, roads, land, infrastructure and services that councils manage ultimately exist for the benefit of the people who live in those municipalities, and those people pay for them.
The 2026 Local Government elections are therefore about more than choosing a name on a ballot paper.
They are an opportunity for ratepayers to decide what sort of local government they want for the next four years.
I'd like to see one that is less interested in the sideshow and more interested in getting the basics right.
One that understands that financial responsibility isn't optional.
One that recognises that ratepayers have limits.
And one where councillors can sit around a table, disagree strongly, make a decision and then get on with the job.
Because at the end of the day, local government should be about the local community, not the people sitting around the council table.