PILOT POST
.
Cr. Peter Keareney seems to be operating from a position that goes something like, 'I cannot see any breakages, so it's not broken, let's just keep on keeping on like we always have .... a bit like British Paints – well that sort of thing.
And, the compliant press can always be trusted to run this sort of argument since nobody is advocating upturning the apple cart.
Councillor Kearney, and the 'status-quoists' he speaks for and with, apparently entertain the notion that an Act devised in 1993 to regulate civic behaviours worked when it was invoked, has worked well enough since and is working well enough now, and by extension will work way into the future. So, it definitely doesn't need to be changed. Well, it turns out that this proposition is quite informative. The serial and surreal applications of Sections 62 & 65 in that Act needs to be called out for starters.
This 'status quo' proposition demands that we all look away while the 'political class' get on with things. If that demands discretionary accountability and flexible transparency, so be it – it seems. After all that's why Section 62 Clause 2 of Tasmania's Local Govt. Act is there. Isn't it?
The idea that Tasmania cannot afford 29 councils has a great deal of merit, and especially so given that the councils range in size between less than 1,000 residents to over 65,000 residents. Without skirting around the issue, Tasmania, with about half a million people actually lacks sufficient talent to run 29 councils. Then there is the issue of expertise, the breadth of experience and even the qualifications required to devise 21st Century strategies and policiesand then be equipped to implement them via 29 councils.
Among the many comparisons drawn, Tasmania has been equated with two largish Sydney or Melbourne suburbs. Okay, that is not entirely fair but it does set the scene quite well if you have'lived away' and somewhere where the cut and thrust of governance is played out in somewhat more accountable ways. Right now, Tasmania could profitably take a close look at Queensland for guidance in local government reform. A Brisbane ratepayer is likely to tell you that they have "the most transparent local governance in the world" and delinquent mayors have been sacked, a council too, and so on.
A cursory survey of the aldermen and councillors in 'Tassie' will demonstrate a different story in regard to 'accountability' – and quite quickly. After the 'political class' comes 'the salaried officers' and any developer will tell you just how uneven their skill sets are across Tasmania even if by-and-large they are much better equipped than their political masters – and its assumed that they are under Section 65 of the Act. It is little wonder that the odd 'GM' has been sprung calling out 'the politicians' while raking in the largess ratepayers are conscripted to pay them. What a lazy business model. All this is resplendent as it is with an in-built success factor.
Then Councillor Kearney in The Examiner, speaking it seems on behalf of all the 'status-quoists', and some elected representatives, proffers the idea that a council is like a business. I'm sorry, that's nonsense, utter nonsense. A council's purpose for the information of the deluded is:
• to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community;
• to represent and promote the interests of the community;
• to provide for the peace, order and good government of a municipal area.
A council is not there to carry out a specific activity with an objective of making a profit. Councils exist to deliver services – ideally at the least cost to their constituents.
Comparing a council with a business is a bit like saying a banana is much the same as an apple. Yes, they're both fruit but after that their differences are much more significant than the similarities.
Ideally, the 1993 Tasmanian Local Govt. model, the one the 'status-quoists' favour, the one that's broken, is the very one that needs to be replaced with a representational structure that is fit-for-purpose in a 21st Century context – like right now for instance.
The 'status-quoists' can cherry-pick less than a handful of councils –interestingly one being one that Councillor Kearney serves on – as exemplars of appropriate representational governance. They do so, apparently, to defend the status quo. If they, indeed if we, had been looking we might have discovered that 'the quo' has lost its status long ago along with any gloss it might have had – and even that was more a mirage than a fact.
If the victims, and yes "victim" is used advisedly, of others in the State hold other views 'status-quoists' should not be too surprised. It is very clear that there are way, way too many councillors and aldermen occupying far too many seats for too little purpose other than perhaps to collect their allowances.
If you listen hard you'll be able to hear them all bleat like so many poddy-calves as their access to'the teat' is threatened. It's a real worry if privileges might yet be withdrawn to make way for transparent accountability – and a fresher model. Yes, yes, I'm dreaming but there you go.
Far from everything being okay, really, Local Govt. in Tasmania is way passed its use-by-date as would be a month-old bottle of milk. Like so many of the defenders of the faith, the 'status-quoists', are now throwing smoke bombs and flashing their mirrors all over the place. Nonetheless, the 'status-quoists' out there would serve their communities much better if they simply got out of the road.
Local Govt. in Tasmania is kaput, buggered, threadbare, stuffed, defunct, worn-out, in tatters,shabby, whatever. It's also running out of time and very low on credibility. 'Status-quoists' divining 'the right way ahead' is dumb and oxymoronic. It is a bit like telling someone to hold their horses while we take our time. Some are no longer ready for that.
Just saying, that sort of thing looks a tad hollow. It is more so, given that a lot of dead heads seem to be hanging on in the bleakness even if it does mean less flowers, fewer green shoots and not enough fruit ahead.
Sorry about the clichés but as it turns out this is a case of clichés at 25 paces and they started it. It goes with the territory. Someone, somewhere said that "the status quo lends itself to destruction".
Ray Norman
first posted LCC News
No comments:
Post a Comment