CONTEXT
It is rarely referred to but
it is important to do so here. SECTION 20 of the current Local
Government Act 1993 (LGA 1993) describes the role/purpose of
councils:
• to provide for the health, safety and welfare of
the community
• to represent the interests of the community
• to provide for the peace, order and good
government of the municipal area
This puts councils, Local
Governance, firmly in the role of placemaking/placescaping or put
another way, in the role of the functionaries of 'cultural
landscaping'.
Arguably, in the end a
Council is involved in no business other than that. Moreover, it is 'the
very purpose' for which they are authorised to levy – conscript! –
rates and charges to provide an operational recurrent budget.
A clearly articulated 'purpose' in
terms of 'civic administration' is that which Key
Performance Indicators are founded and the reference that 'councils' need
to be tested on/against and held to account for. For practical purposes:
• representatives
are elected determine policies and priorities; and
• managers
are appointed to carry them out on the ground and in
real time.
When the Act was written 25
years ago it is quite apparent that certain assumptions were made in regard to
all this KPI founded upon longstanding understandings to do with
effective representational 'civic administration'. However,
over time circumstances have changed and much of what was the case in 1993 in a
20th Century context is no longer so in a 21st Century context. Much of this
change has happened very quickly and the 'change' has
been multi-dimensional and dynamic.
For example, if you do
not know the name the inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee,
you would know that today there are very few people who could imagine
communicating 'effectively' without the WWW.
Unquestionably, this development has had an enormous impact upon civic
administration that is largely unacknowledged. Sometimes change is
resisted given the demographic of those engaged in 'civic
administration' . Moreover, the flow-ons that are
assumed will have income and social impacts upon elected representatives and
managers alike are unwelcome.
Arguably, no
business/operation/institution could expect to operate or perform adequately,
let alone thrive without the information technologies that the internet delivers.
Currently, it is just not possible to meet community/client expectations
without access to current communication technologies. That is except for Local
Govt. by-and-large that is entrenched itself in a 20th Century mindset albeit
that it is no longer either relevant or sustainable. Currently, instead of
storing data in hardcopy formats it is stored in 'digital
data files'.
It was not until the 46th
Anniversary of Hiroshima Day's in 1991 that Berners-Lee
published the world's first website from a lab in the Swiss
Alps and by 1993 when Tasmania's LGA was drafted
there were just 130 websites in the world. The milestone
of 1 billion websites was first reached in September
of 2014 while today there well over 1.959
billion – and the number is growing exponentially. The
Internet is ubiquitous and the assumptions that Tasmania's Local Government
Act is based upon are essentially preinternet. Thus these
assumptions are totally unable meet current expectations nor meet anything like
representing contemporary aspirations for 'cultural placescaping'.
Arguably, the Tasmanian Local
Government Act (LGA 1993) is no longer fit-for-purpose in
regard to the legitimate aspirations and expectations of local governance's
constituency – clearly it is redundant. This becomes all the
more true when it is considered that the inhabitants of a cultural landscape
– municipality/district/precinct(?) – need, and
typically do not not get, adequate representation.
Currently, the representative 'authority' devised to determine the ways their 'cultural landscape' was/is to be 'shaped/configured' is currently dominated by management that is able to self-determine policy priorities in isolation and well away the scrutiny of elected representatives – alderpeople, councillors. For the most part 'council operations' are insulted from and isolated from criticism and critique – and/or largely deaf to it.
Given that 21st C technologies constituents are perfectly able to effectively represent themselves either directly or via an agent, this further compounds the redundancy embedded in 'The Act' in a 21st C context.
In 1993 this was not the case. As time progresses the percentage of people able to represent themselves via a 'device in their pocket', and in 'real time', will like the WWW grow exponentially.
With each incremental 'digital advance' the function of representational local government diminishes incrementally.
PURPOSE AND REPRESENTATION
As above, the 'purpose' of
Local Govt in the Act can be realised via:
• The policies
enshrined within it with 'Council management' ;
• Guided and
directed by a 'place's representatives' – the
councillors/alderpeople.
The Act's purpose is actually to shape a 'place' in a social cum cultural context and maintain 'place' in accord with The cultural realities inhabiting 'the place' – municipality, precinct region whatever.
Up to now it has made good
democratic and administrative sense to give 'elected
representatives' a social licence to effect 'placemaking
decisions' on a community's behalf. Clearly, this is no longer
the case given the advent of 'the internet and social
media'. The mechanisms and technologies already exist to afford
constituent and appropriate opportunities to represent themselves either by
themselves or via an agent.
Unquestionably, the social cum political dynamics have changed, and fundamentally, albeit that the trickle down effect has not yet been felt in governance all too often. There is a case to be put saying that governance – community, institutional and corporate – has become comfortable with the status quo despite, and because of, its flaws and weaknesses and notwithstanding 'the economies' representational governance has to offer.
Places shapes cultures
and cultures are shaped by place.
For practical purposes
relevant to when the LGA 1993 was drafted 'purposeful representative
governance' was best delivered via the operational structure of a
council with:
• Elected
representatives who determined the policies and strategies that
shape the cultural landscape in accord with the cultural realities of 'the
place' and the wishes and aspirations of the Council's
constituents;
• Appointed managers and
experts in various fields who carry out and realise the policies and
strategies determined by the elected representatives.
Under the LGA 1993 in
Tasmania management has grown exponentially and largely to satisfy its own
ends. Clearly, 'Parkinson's Law' is
in play but more to the point, underlings are increasingly requiring
underlings, ad infinitum! It is a process of unproductive implosion
– and a wasteful one at that.
For example, in the case of the City of Launceston, Tasmania's largest local government jurisdiction, there are approx. 580 employees, that is approx. one employee for every 100 constituents approx. servicing something in the order of 46 thousand residents/constituents. Clearly the 'bureaucratic imperative' is being well served but the outcomes are arguably consistent with Parkinson's Law.
The question arising here is, is there useful and productive 'work' for all those people or would they be more usefully employed elsewhere towards achieving productive entrepreneurial outcomes.
SECTION 65 OF THE LGA 1993
This provision of the LGA 1993 SECTION 65 is well intended but nonetheless it is extraordinarily naive. A well intentioned diligent administrator might not have issues with meeting the obligations invested in this provision. However, it is uncomfortably open to the subjective self-serving 'deeming authority' of an administrator with an agenda.
If there was a straight forward mitigating provision whereby elected representatives and/or constituents could hold managers accountable the provision might then have 21st C relevance. Sadly that is not the case and the provision is fundamentally flawed and all too often it fails.
SECTION 62 OF
THE LGA 1993
This provision in the LGA 1993
SECTION 62 turns out as being the most insidious provision within
the LGA. Via this provision a GM, and acting alone, can for
whatever reason subvert policies and strategic determinations of Council.
Indeed, constituents in Launceston over time have reported contentious use of the provision that permits "[a] general manager [to] do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act".
Ex-alderman Basil Fitch, a diligent attendee of CoL meetings, attests to a number of incidents over the life of the last Council where SECTION 62 contentiously, and arguably inappropriately, came into play and effectively exclude elected representatives from the decision making.
It is now legendary that Council's decision to grant UTas 'naming rights' for York Park was granted under the provisions of SECTION 62. Likewise, the arrangements for the 'CH Smith Development' loan ($9 Million) had a subsequent 'interest free' loan (reportedly somewhere in the order of $11 Million) attached that was approved under SECTION 62 provisions only to be revealed after the event and in confidence. These are but two prominent exemplars of what quite likely a forensic audit would, as likely as not, would show up as being an 'authority' regularly employed.
While there is an administrative case to be put in support of the provision it has clearly been used in ways that sideline the elected Councillors. Arguably, it has been used to subvert democratic processes.
In combination SECTION 65, and the questionable requirement for the GM to guarantee the expertise of his advice to Council, the SECTION 62 provision subverts 'accountability' . Moreover, it pays no respect whatsoever to any aspiration in regard to 'accountability and transparency' and the Minister's Good Governance Guide.
DELEGATED AUTHORITY
Councils are required to maintain a list of 'Delegated Authorities' and make it available to the public. Some delegations are made by Council and others by the GM. Given the assumptions of 'expertise' in SECTION 65 of the LGA it is typically the case that these 'authorities' are delegated to an 'administrative position' not the person holding the position and holding appropriate qualifications plus experience.
The apparent assumption that's typically made seemingly is that the person holding the position has the appropriate qualifications and/or experience to meet and fulfil the expectations of the delegation on their own account. That may not be the case and it appears that scant attention is given to ensuring that it is.
Given this, there is a very strong case to be put for it to be always so. That is, even if there is a need to delegate an authority outside a council's staff establishment.
Moreover, there is further case to be put where delegations are regularly reviewed, say biannually, to:
• ensure
that the list of authorities is up to date and complete;
• that all people holding such an authority
currently have the appropriate qualifications and experience; and that
• up to date information is available to the
public at all times without reservation – ideally online.
ACCOUNTABILITY
The 'four-year-all-in-all-out' tenure for a councils compromises and dilute's elected representatives' accountability in that it does not provide for performance to be tested for what turns out to be quite a long time.
Apart from that, the Code of
Conduct provision currently is both cumbersome and feeble. So much so that a
delinquent councillor merely faces the threat of being thrashed with a feather
and it seems to apply only to individuals.
It is commonly said that an election is the best available 'accountability device' and it might be given that they happen in a timely way. Also, it only applies to elected representatives not appointed functionaries where employment contracts protect their position – and for the most part rightly so.
This of course dose not discount 'the press' as an accountability device but it is apocryphal that the press can be bought. Thus claims of 'independence' are typically discounted and arguably never more so than in the context of Local Govt.
Against this background, it is clear that the aspiration for accountability in regard to Local Govt. in Tasmania there is a need for more rigorous accountability mechanisms, independent mechanisms. Current information technologies do offer the opportunities to provide them. Social Media is currently a 'go to platform' if backed by mechanisms to mitigate its excesses.
In other jurisdictions there is open access to all records without impediment. In NSW for instance constituents have access to the records of every local governance related meeting – sub-committees, project committees, whatever. In contrast the converse is the case in Launceston at the discretion of the GM under the provisions of SECTION 62 – and this does nothing whatsoever for accountability and transparency.
In recent times 'citizen's/community juries' have been used to add credibility to governance. Likewise, organisations such as the newDEMOCRACY Foundation have been advocating approaches to governance that do not always rely upon 'elected representatives' for credibility. In the light of emerged and emerging technologies in 'communications' the very veracity of assertions made about 'democracy' incrementally wane.
Then there is that famous Churchillian quote that goes "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Somehow, it resonates less loudly in a 21st C context. It is just possible that current communication technologies can enhance that which we value in democracy and mitigate against the failures Churchill acknowledges.
No matter what, transparency and accountability must be a fundamental aspiration of Local Govt. and it needs to be said that the LGA 1993, currently, fails 'the pub test' almost all the time.
RE-IMAGING LOCAL
GOVERNANCE
To anyone seriously seeking purposeful, transparent and accountable local governance in Tasmania that is affordable and effective, they must be all too aware that current LGA 1993 fails to deliver –and miserably.
It is clear that there is a
need to reimagine Local Gov. in Tasmania given that it is well
recognised that there are way too many councils with there being 29 for
a population of 500 thousand people.
Elsewhere that would be just one to three councils. For example Brisbane City Council is about five time as large with a population of 2,408,223 people. Auckland's population is currently estimated population for the Auckland region was 1.66 million people serviced by Community Boards.
Whereas, in NSW Tasmania's
population is approximately equal to four metropolitan councils. Clearly there
is no fail-safe population ratio for local governance and its 'placemaking' role
given the imperatives of geography and other social cum cultural imperatives.
Given what elected representatives, and their functionaries, have invested in the status quo there are clearly forces at work to by-and-large maintain the status quo. That is so, albeit it being demonstrably fiscally too expensive plus in general terms lacking efficiency a effectiveness. On the evidence, politically forced amalgamations are unpalatable on one hand and are not being delivered on the other.
As has been previously the case 'government' has patched up the system and applied 'band-aids' here and there with the long term outcomes remaining pretty much the same as before 'the repair' was initiated. Clearly it is time for a reality check.
Any serious consideration of a way forward will lead to a total re-imagination of the LGA 1993 as not to do so will simply carry its failures forward without achieving much at all.
However, what might the
re-imagination entail given that:
• The current LGA 1993 is currently
obsolete and redundant as a 21st C instrument of governance;
• 21st C circumstances offer technologies and
communication strategies that enable people to effectively represent themselves
in regard to their purposeful objectives in placemaking/placescaping; and
• The community/precinct/regional cultural
dynamics currently in play are increasingly diverse and multidimensional and
liable to change quickly.
Quite simply there is a need
for a system that is 'fleet-of-foot' and responsive to
the needs and aspirations of constituencies. That may not always be via
representative democracy even if it may be in part. Commentators often
look toward Ancient Greece and see it as "the cradle of
democracy". They lament the passing of its democratic practices and
a great deal has been written about its lessons that might be applied in a
modern context. Yet there are other examples in existence that can show us how
to ‘do democracy' and do it better.
For instance, in regard to the 'Swiss model' we think about Switzerland’s frequent use of referenda. While this is an important feature to reference it is part of a larger pattern of power sharing. This power sharing is known as the 'magic formula' that prevents a majority from dominating minorities where political actors and the general population work together to achieve stability and prosperity.
The Swiss government is
highly decentralised and the Swiss system has three layers: the federal, the
cantonal, and the communal. Other Western countries also have a local level of
governance, but Switzerland accords the local level much more decision-making
power.
In a Tasmanian context it is important to note that there are other ways to imagine local governance. In New Zealand Community Boards that were created by the local government reforms in 1989. Currently there are 110 community boards in operation, both urban and rural, working with local authorities throughout New Zealand.
The purpose of a community board is to:
• represent and act as an advocate for the
interests of the community;
• consider and report on any matter referred to it
by their overarching authority, and any issues of interest to the community
board;
• make an annual submission in regard to
expenditure;
• maintain an overview of services provided within
the community; and
• communicate with community organisations and
special interest groups in the community, and
• undertake any other responsibilities delegated
to them.
Clearly, there are options beyond
amalgamation once it is acknowledged that Tasmania's system of local
governance is not delivering the outcomes people are currently
aspiring towards.
All that stands between a
better form of local governance that delivers outcomes is time. Indeed it is
time for change and the time is now.
HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS 21st CENTURY LOCAL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM?
Given that it is currently
articulated that the purpose of local governance is to:
• to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community
• to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community
• to represent the interests of the community
• to provide for the peace, order and good
government of the municipal area
A more inclusive and more
equitable 21st C way forward might well be found if it is
actually sought and the following 'steps forward' might
well deliver better outcomes for Tasmanians
• Place all Tasmanian councils under
administration for 3 possibly 4 years
• Establish an Interim Local Governance Commission
with up to 12 appointed full-time commissioners with the appropriate skills and
expertise and the chair/president being an appointee from outside Tasmania – Victoria, NSW, New Zealand
• Delegate authority to the commission to deal
with and oversight of the current council operations, their recurrent budgets
for local and to represent the interests local communities whilst incrementally
collaborating with a network of operations
• Initiate the appointment of a series Community
Boards to operates as advocates for their 'community
precincts' and where appropriate in collaboration with
adjoining Community Boards and precincts
• Initiate an inquiry and research to
interrogate equitable forward funding for a system of local governance able to
deliver the services communities require and in a timely manner
• Initiate research to discover the State's resource in collaboration with other branches of governance, the corporate sector, precinct networks and institutions based in the State
• Initiate a series of Community Forums to
generate a proactive discourse focused on providing communities with 21st C
outcome relevant to their precincts/communities
• Initiate a recruitment process for a Local
Governance Commission supported by a network of Community Boards to
operate as the State's local governance mechanism
Ray Norman
Independent Researcher
Cultural Geographer
Cultural Producer
For and on behalf of the
Launceston Concerned Citizens Network
REFERENCE LINKS
• The Concept of ‘Community of Ownership and Interest’
• Auditing Placedness
• Introduction to Coolabah special issue on placescape, placemaking, placemarking, placedness … geography and cultural production
• MUSEUMS: Stakes, Shares & Ownerships
No comments:
Post a Comment