Hobart - Glenorchy Amalgamation
Why a Hobart-Glenorchy Amalgamation Is Not in the Public Interest
The proposal to merge Hobart City Council and Glenorchy City Council has reappeared on the Council Agenda this coming Monday. Although often promoted as an efficiency measure, a thorough examination shows that such a merger would increase rates, weaken representation and apply planning approaches unsuited to both municipalities. On the evidence available, amalgamation is not in the public interest.
Hobart and Glenorchy perform different roles within Greater Hobart. Hobart manages the responsibilities of a capital city: the CBD, major institutions, heritage precincts and events of statewide significance. Glenorchy, by contrast, supports suburban communities, industrial precincts and a population with distinct social and economic characteristics. These responsibilities cannot be merged without blurring priorities and reducing effectiveness.
Identity is central to this issue. Glenorchy is not an extension of Hobart. It has its own civic history, community expectations and planning challenges. Its council advocates for local industry, suburban amenity, transport access and community services. In a merged authority, those priorities would inevitably compete with capital-city objectives. Local identity shapes decision-making, and losing Glenorchy’s dedicated council means losing its dedicated voice.
Financial impacts require clear acknowledgement. Glenorchy’s rates are substantially lower than Hobart’s. Any merged council must harmonise rating structures, and experience elsewhere shows that harmonisation almost always results in rises for the lower-rated municipality. Glenorchy households, many already facing economic pressure, would face higher rates. Equally important, Hobart residents should not assume their rates would fall. Amalgamations rarely produce savings. Transition costs - systems alignment, staffing adjustments and administrative restructuring - typically increase costs overall.
It is also incorrect to assume that staffing reductions will generate savings. Only a small number of senior positions would be redundant with significant contractual payouts. The wider workforce would remain essential to deliver services across both municipalities. Long-term staff savings are unlikely.
Planning risks are significant. Some Hobart elected members have argued that Glenorchy’s open-air carparks should be redeveloped for housing and that Hobart’s strong anti-car planning philosophy should extend into Glenorchy. These ideas may be well intentioned but do not reflect Glenorchy’s transport patterns or employment geography. Car dependency is higher in Glenorchy, and applying capital-city planning models could unintentionally increase disadvantage.
Representation would become imbalanced. Hobart elected members already hold greater public visibility due to the capital-city role. In any merged council, it is highly likely that the majority of elected members would be drawn from Hobart. Population distribution, higher profile, stronger name recognition and greater media presence would make it harder for Glenorchy candidates to be elected, reducing Glenorchy’s influence within its own future council. Structural reform should not result in one community dominating another.
A related concern is the political culture that can develop within larger councils. I am currently the only Hobart City Council elected member who has not stood - or attempted to stand - for state or federal parliament. Local government should not function as a political stepping stone, nor should amalgamation provide a larger platform for those seeking higher office.
If structural reform is to be considered, alternatives should be evaluated on their merits. A Glenorchy-Derwent Valley pairing would reflect commuter patterns, shared economic characteristics and a more coherent regional identity. Past discussions about Hobart potentially assuming part of Taroona gained attention because they reflected geographic and community logic. Although not implemented, they demonstrated what a sensible boundary adjustment looks like. No such logic supports merging Hobart and Glenorchy.
Tasmania already has mechanisms for cooperation. The Greater Hobart Strategic Partnership enables joint planning on transport, housing and infrastructure without dismantling local councils.
A merger would not solve regional challenges. It would raise rates, weaken representation and impose unsuitable planning outcomes. Cooperation - not consolidation - remains the appropriate path.
