Professor David Adams piece in The Mercury – Instead of parties taking a sledgehammer to local democracy to crack a walnut, seek reform solutions (1/3/2025).

Both major parties support the idea of councils being stripped of planning functions where projects are “too important” to be entrusted to democratically elected local government. This is a problematic argument because it shifts democratically elected local government’s role from decision-making to simply providing an “input” to planning decisions.

The most recent example of this is the proposal to establish decisions by unaccountable and unelected experts called Development Assessment Panels or DAPs. There are numerous assaults on democracy entailed in the DAPs proposal – for example, the restricting of appeals – but here I will just focus on the key anti-democratic arguments in play:
AN assumption that councils are rife with self-interest and bias, including an “anti-development” bias; 
COUNCILS lack capability to deal with complexity and “major” projects that have statewide flow-on effects;
THE above cannot be resolved through increased scale and capability of democratically elected local governments; and
INDEPENDENT expert panels are able to “represent” the interests and values of local communities. 

But the role of experts in a democracy is to advise elected members, not for democratically elected members to have input expert decision-making. 

The “experts” are apparently more capable – than democratically elected representatives – in weighing up the various complex values and interests at play.

But the central tenet of representative of democracy is not that communities can have a say in matters of importance to them. The central tenet is that important decisions made on behalf of voters are made by elected representatives directly and those decisions. 

Once that nexus is broken, it can be a slippery slope where suddenly we find that the idea of local community voices being heard is relegated to one of a range of voices. 

And crucially, the unelected and unaccountable DAPs’ members are also tasked with making expert judgement calls on the veracity of the voice of communities versus other voices. And just to reinforce the diminution of local democracy, the DAPs also elevate the idea of “statewide priorities, values and expert knowledge” above that of “local priorities, values and knowledge”. There is an assumption that while the experts are more than capable of understanding all things local, the argument does not work the other way around. That is, local priorities, values and knowledge are apparently oblivious to and inconsistent with statewide priorities. 

For example, we often talk about the soul of a local community – not something I would want a DAP to be making judgements about. 

The DAP proposal represents a very elitist that would fundamentally undermine councils in Tasmania. One reason for this is most local decisions have spillovers into adjoining communities and many will have statewide or national implications and thus fall within the jurisdiction of the DAPs. 

For example, if the Duck Reach power station were to come back online, it would most likely be classified as a major project. In 1895, it was very local and powered up parts of Launceston, but now it would be seen as part of a state, national and soon global energy grid. 

Councils have, of course, brought much of this on themselves by refusing to seriously initiate reforms such as those outlined in the recent Review of Local Government. 

If local government has a future in Tasmania, it is with regional or catchment-based groupings where it would be much more difficult to argue councils lacked capacity and wider regional perspectives. 

The better solution – and on that is common globally – is for councils to cluster together regionally for major planning decisions and to have a mix of local and state-elected representatives supported by relevant expertise. 

The other democratic lesson from the process is just how important is it to have a conversation in Tasmania about our planning goals and to refresh the objectives of our major pieces of legislation, especially the Local Government Act and the Land Use Planning Approvals Act. If these Acts were clearer on local and statewide values and interests and how to weigh them up, we wouldn’t need DAPs. 

Instead of taking a sledgehammer to local democracy to crack a walnut, the major parties ought to be looking for solutions that simultaneously boost local democracy and reform local government. 

When I first studied politics and policy, I learnt that politics is about the authoritative allocation of values. Since this is a big deal for most of us, we entrust it to our elected representatives. But not any more, apparently. 

David Adams is a Professor of management at UTAS with expertise in public and social policy, innovation and regional development.