LOCAL GOVERNANCE TASMANIA
RETHINKING LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN TASMANIA
When the current legislation for local governance in Tasmania was framed it was 1993, Internet communications was only just at a beginning point. Where we have come to today was absolutely unanticipatable. The 21st Century world is quite a different place yet the legislation essentially remains as if the world hasn’t changed one jot.
To think of the legislation as being redundant and Neanderthal would not be an exaggeration. Moreover, in terms of current understandings it is well past its use-by-date and it fails to deliver in so many ways.
The first problem facing local governance in Tasmania is the wastefulness of having 29 local jurisdictions for a population that hovers around half a million people.
That is:
• 29 mayors and however many councillors state wide;
• 29 general managers state wide; and
• Unnecessary and wasteful capital expenditure and infrastructure expenditure state wide.
Even a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ will tell you that is something like two BILLION dollars is being expended without delivering the kinds of fiscal, social and cultural dividends commensurate with that expenditure.
To quote Rosemary Armitage, Independent Legislative Council Member for Launceston and a once Alderperson, she has invoked that famous quote that says "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". So, there is some residual wisdom out there and given half a chance it can be engaged with.
So, where to from here?
So, where to from here?
The Amalgamation Hurdle
Politically, local government amalgamations are unlikely to go anywhere interesting anytime soon. Local elected representatives see the proposition as a threat to their community standing – and oh yes, to an income stream. Almost to 'a man' – pardon the genderisation – they argue that "local grass roots representation is what people want" – and oftentimes they are quite right. However, if asked to consider how much ‘the status quo’ is costing in lost opportunities people seem ready enough to consider the need for change.
Realistically Tasmania could have a single local governance jurisdiction given its population, albeit not within the paradigm of the current Act.
Consider this, Brisbane City Council with an area of 1,343 km² and a population of 1,231,605 people (2018) is served by 27 councillors. Brisbane City Council is the largest local government in Australia and all Brisbane residents elect the Lord Mayor – See https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-council.
Brisbane City Council is about five Tasmania’s and as any visitor to the city will tell you it is a vibrant city well serviced by its local government. There are other large councils around Australia that demonstrate that Tasmania is currently over governed and essentially not so well served. The facts speak very loudly for themselves when one actually gets down to doing the research.
However good Brisbane City Council is it does not – by itself as a model – present a case for amalgamations in Tasmania without ‘root and branch’ 21st C reimaginings of the ‘governance model’.
That is the hurdle to be jumped and jumped it must be!
What might a 21st C governance model look like?
In oder to answer such a question it necessary to go to first principles in order to lay a few ghosts and dispel some of the bureaucratic mythology that has accumulated around 'governance'. The mythologies that have gathered themselves around local government in Tasmania is replete every kind of history.
Wikipedia – albeit an anonymous 'authority' and written collaboratively – tells us that 'governance' comprises all of the processes of governing – whether undertaken by the government of a region/state/nation, by a market or by a network – over a social system – family, tribe, formal or informal organisation, a territory or across territories – through the laws, norms, power or language of an organised society.
Governance relates to "the processes of interaction and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions" – Wikipedia.
In lay terms, governance can be described as the 'political processes' by which nations, organisations, people, determine the social and cultural norms under which they collectively choose to live.
A variety of entities, known generically as 'governing bodies', can govern. The most formal is a government, a body whose sole responsibility and authority is to make binding decisions in a given geopolitical system – such as a nation/state – by establishing laws and regulations.
Other types of governing include an organisation – such as a corporation recognised as a legal entity by a government – a socio-political group – chiefdom, tribe, gang, family, religious denomination, etc., or another, informal group of people.
Wikipedia – albeit an anonymous 'authority' and written collaboratively – tells us that 'governance' comprises all of the processes of governing – whether undertaken by the government of a region/state/nation, by a market or by a network – over a social system – family, tribe, formal or informal organisation, a territory or across territories – through the laws, norms, power or language of an organised society.
Governance relates to "the processes of interaction and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions" – Wikipedia.
In lay terms, governance can be described as the 'political processes' by which nations, organisations, people, determine the social and cultural norms under which they collectively choose to live.
A variety of entities, known generically as 'governing bodies', can govern. The most formal is a government, a body whose sole responsibility and authority is to make binding decisions in a given geopolitical system – such as a nation/state – by establishing laws and regulations.
Other types of governing include an organisation – such as a corporation recognised as a legal entity by a government – a socio-political group – chiefdom, tribe, gang, family, religious denomination, etc., or another, informal group of people.
Many people in the 'management domain' confuse management with governance. There is a real need to dispel the myths, and the 'blending and blanding', misinforming local governance in Tasmania.
Dr. Lynda Bourne tells us that "management and governance fulfil different purposes within an organisation [jurisdiction/operation]". If her hypothesis holds, then it follows:
Dr. Lynda Bourne tells us that "management and governance fulfil different purposes within an organisation [jurisdiction/operation]". If her hypothesis holds, then it follows:
• "if something is designated as a ‘management function’ it cannot also be designated a governance function"; and
• "conversely governance functions are not management functions'.
Dr Bourne points to the widely accepted functions of 'management' where Henri Fayol (1841 – 1925) defined the five functions of management in his 1916 book Administration Industrielle et Generale, "they are:
"1. to forecast and plan,
2. to organise
3. to command or direct (lead)
4. to coordinate
5. to control (French: contrôller: in the sense that a manager must receive feedback about a process in order to make necessary adjustments and must analyse the deviations.)"
Representative democracy or 'indirect democracy, representative government' is founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy or 'pure democracy' in which people decide on policy initiatives directly.
Nearly all modern 'Western-style democracies' are representative democracies albeit understood differently in in various cultural and political contexts.
Except by 'political convention', in Australia/Tasmania there is no compelling imperative for local governance to conform to the conventions of elected representative democracy. Indeed in a 21st C context, given that direct democracy modelling is increasingly feasible via the Internet and digital technologies.
Options and opportunities for change
Representative democracy or 'indirect democracy, representative government' is founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy or 'pure democracy' in which people decide on policy initiatives directly.
Nearly all modern 'Western-style democracies' are representative democracies albeit understood differently in in various cultural and political contexts.
Except by 'political convention', in Australia/Tasmania there is no compelling imperative for local governance to conform to the conventions of elected representative democracy. Indeed in a 21st C context, given that direct democracy modelling is increasingly feasible via the Internet and digital technologies.
Options and opportunities for change
 | |
IF there is to be change in regard to how communities 'govern themselves', and in Tasmania there is little doubt that there needs to be change, it would be pointless to fiddle with the status quo. In a 21st Century context that change could, and arguably should, move from the current, but broken, 'elected representational INDIRECT model' to, or towards, a 'DIRECT democracy model' (DDM). Ronald Regan – the USA's 40th president 1981 to 1989 – where he is quoted as saying 'the status quo is [quite simply] Latin for the mess was are in", even in 21st C terms, he hit the nail right on the head.
Given the status quo in Tasmania, there now must be an opportunity to change – rather a 'need' for change. Arguably, the case for taking up the option to move away from the status quo to a 'DIRECT democracy model' DDM should be taken – and sooner rather than later.
Sticking band-aids on the current model will not heal the wounds nor deal with the dysfunctionalism that is increasingly evident. Neither can, nor should, local governance be reduced to metrics and algorithms despite all the promise the Internet and the attendant CYBERtechnologies hold.
The case for a paradigm change from the current 'elected representational INDIRECT model' (ERIM) to a ''DIRECT democracy model' (DDM) could never be stronger than under the current circumstances.
Once the need for change is acknowledged, and acted upon proactively, there is much to be negotiated within the Communities of Ownership & Interest (COI). That is, the local communities with whom the issue of local governance rests – and where the reality of DDM kicks in most poignantly.
TASKone will be to engage with the COI in a meaningful way. Here there is a 'tried and true' mechanism to enable that. That is the now well understood model 'Citizen's Assemblies' – sometimes called Citizen's Juries – that are in use internationally and increasing so in Australia. The newDEMOCRACY Foundation has established a credible track record in regard to facilitating such 'assemblies' – and most importantly at arm's length. These 'assemblies' disrupt the status quo.
Their disruptiveness has won them no accolades in Tasmania to date. This is especially so in the management paradigm where 'if one goes about turning over rocks', you are bound to expose 'bureaucratic empire building' in full swing in so, so, many local government jurisdictions.
Typically, these 'fiefdoms' are headed up by unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats vested with discretionary authority under Tasmania's current Local Govt. Act 1993. Here the opportunities for corruption and distortion abound.
All this in play elsewhere in Australia was poignantly exposed, and lampooned, some time ago in the popular television series "Error! Hyperlink reference not valid." – set in and around Arcadia Waters Council . In fact this series was and still does, provide a clear an ever so thinly disguised raison d'être for change.
Indeed, the desire for change has been lurking in our subconscious in a rather all pervasive ways for quite a long time.
How might a 'direct democracy model' be implemented?
Sticking band-aids on the current model will not heal the wounds nor deal with the dysfunctionalism that is increasingly evident. Neither can, nor should, local governance be reduced to metrics and algorithms despite all the promise the Internet and the attendant CYBERtechnologies hold.
The case for a paradigm change from the current 'elected representational INDIRECT model' (ERIM) to a ''DIRECT democracy model' (DDM) could never be stronger than under the current circumstances.
Once the need for change is acknowledged, and acted upon proactively, there is much to be negotiated within the Communities of Ownership & Interest (COI). That is, the local communities with whom the issue of local governance rests – and where the reality of DDM kicks in most poignantly.
TASKone will be to engage with the COI in a meaningful way. Here there is a 'tried and true' mechanism to enable that. That is the now well understood model 'Citizen's Assemblies' – sometimes called Citizen's Juries – that are in use internationally and increasing so in Australia. The newDEMOCRACY Foundation has established a credible track record in regard to facilitating such 'assemblies' – and most importantly at arm's length. These 'assemblies' disrupt the status quo.
Their disruptiveness has won them no accolades in Tasmania to date. This is especially so in the management paradigm where 'if one goes about turning over rocks', you are bound to expose 'bureaucratic empire building' in full swing in so, so, many local government jurisdictions.
Typically, these 'fiefdoms' are headed up by unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats vested with discretionary authority under Tasmania's current Local Govt. Act 1993. Here the opportunities for corruption and distortion abound.
All this in play elsewhere in Australia was poignantly exposed, and lampooned, some time ago in the popular television series "Error! Hyperlink reference not valid." – set in and around Arcadia Waters Council . In fact this series was and still does, provide a clear an ever so thinly disguised raison d'être for change.
Indeed, the desire for change has been lurking in our subconscious in a rather all pervasive ways for quite a long time.
How might a 'direct democracy model' be implemented?
 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE |
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TASMANIA
If meaningful change is to be pursued all option need to on the table and actively investigated, –and rigorously – in an open and transparent way. Here there is no room the mindset that tells us that X, Y or Z is 'a given'. Nothing is, nor should anything automatically be, 'a given'.
For instance, politicised boundary lines need to be dispensed with. 'Places and cultures' are defined by their geography and in turn cultural realities define place – and the cultural imperatives involved in 'placemaking' has a profound impact upon geographic realities.
Therefore, river catchments offer a more than appropriate alternative to the currently politicised boundary system that has mitigated against meaningful and more appropriate imaginings of place and 'placedness'.
Fundamentally local governance is about place, placemaking and placescaping, all of which are deeply embedded in local governance's planning functions.None of this is well enough served, or indeed understood, by the current status quoism in play.
The status quoist in local governance, as likely as not, are going to come marching out of the woodwork arguing for the continuation of the ERIM model to persist. They'll talk about the 'democratic imperatives', traditional approaches and heaven forbid the 'proper way'. Somewhere some wise man or other noted that if truth be told, "the proper way is that straight and narrow pathway that ultimately leads to mediocrity."
When decoded what they will by-and-large be advocating will be their continued access to the opportunities the status quo delivers – salaries, superannuation packages, business opportunities, stipends, informal dividends, etc. etc. etc.
Just like it is with 'renewable energy' there will be an ongoing need for the productive players in a DDM model. It is just the case that a slightly different skills base will be required, and as likely as not, different people will be getting the rewards for different outcomes and the different services needed and provided – different performance indicators. This is what 'change' and 'paradigm shifts' are all about – productive disruption.
Against that backgrounding there is a great deal to beb negotiated, The 'top down' approach that marks the. ERIM model will not deliver change and the evidence for that in Tasmania is everywhere one cares to look. However, the DDM model supported by 'Citizen's Assemblies' is well placed to do so and especially so given the much more level playing field the DDM model offers.
IN CONCLUSION
In order find a way forward a number of steps need to be taken:
FIRSTLY: Persuade the State Government that it will be cost effective, and electorally acceptable, to move to a Direct Democracy Model for local governance in Tasmania as an alternative to council amalgamations – and sooner rather than later.
SECONDLY: Proactively initiate a set of 'arm's length' protocols that facilitate Local Government Citizen's Assemblies that will enable Tasmanian ratepayers, residents, planners et al to interrogate options and opportunities for change relative to local governance towards achieving more equitable outcomes.
THIRDLY: Proactively 'market', advocate and facilitate the use of Citizen's Assemblies and Cyber Facilitated Referenda to engage Tasmanian ratepayers, residents, planners et al more directly in local placemaking initiatives and developments towards achieving more equitable outcomes.
FOURTHLY: Proactively work towards building and establishing and/or acquiring the CYBERnetworks and DIGITALtechnologies required to service a 21st Century Direct Democracy Model for Tasmania.
Once these things have been achieved there will be an ongoing need to refine protocols and adjust legislation as the changes embedded in shift from a ''elected representational INDIRECT model' in respect to local governance, to a Direct Democracy Model requires fundamental and multi-dimensional change in the short, medium and longer term.
For instance, politicised boundary lines need to be dispensed with. 'Places and cultures' are defined by their geography and in turn cultural realities define place – and the cultural imperatives involved in 'placemaking' has a profound impact upon geographic realities.
Therefore, river catchments offer a more than appropriate alternative to the currently politicised boundary system that has mitigated against meaningful and more appropriate imaginings of place and 'placedness'.
Fundamentally local governance is about place, placemaking and placescaping, all of which are deeply embedded in local governance's planning functions.None of this is well enough served, or indeed understood, by the current status quoism in play.
The status quoist in local governance, as likely as not, are going to come marching out of the woodwork arguing for the continuation of the ERIM model to persist. They'll talk about the 'democratic imperatives', traditional approaches and heaven forbid the 'proper way'. Somewhere some wise man or other noted that if truth be told, "the proper way is that straight and narrow pathway that ultimately leads to mediocrity."
When decoded what they will by-and-large be advocating will be their continued access to the opportunities the status quo delivers – salaries, superannuation packages, business opportunities, stipends, informal dividends, etc. etc. etc.
Just like it is with 'renewable energy' there will be an ongoing need for the productive players in a DDM model. It is just the case that a slightly different skills base will be required, and as likely as not, different people will be getting the rewards for different outcomes and the different services needed and provided – different performance indicators. This is what 'change' and 'paradigm shifts' are all about – productive disruption.
Against that backgrounding there is a great deal to beb negotiated, The 'top down' approach that marks the. ERIM model will not deliver change and the evidence for that in Tasmania is everywhere one cares to look. However, the DDM model supported by 'Citizen's Assemblies' is well placed to do so and especially so given the much more level playing field the DDM model offers.
IN CONCLUSION
In order find a way forward a number of steps need to be taken:
FIRSTLY: Persuade the State Government that it will be cost effective, and electorally acceptable, to move to a Direct Democracy Model for local governance in Tasmania as an alternative to council amalgamations – and sooner rather than later.
SECONDLY: Proactively initiate a set of 'arm's length' protocols that facilitate Local Government Citizen's Assemblies that will enable Tasmanian ratepayers, residents, planners et al to interrogate options and opportunities for change relative to local governance towards achieving more equitable outcomes.
THIRDLY: Proactively 'market', advocate and facilitate the use of Citizen's Assemblies and Cyber Facilitated Referenda to engage Tasmanian ratepayers, residents, planners et al more directly in local placemaking initiatives and developments towards achieving more equitable outcomes.
FOURTHLY: Proactively work towards building and establishing and/or acquiring the CYBERnetworks and DIGITALtechnologies required to service a 21st Century Direct Democracy Model for Tasmania.
Once these things have been achieved there will be an ongoing need to refine protocols and adjust legislation as the changes embedded in shift from a ''elected representational INDIRECT model' in respect to local governance, to a Direct Democracy Model requires fundamental and multi-dimensional change in the short, medium and longer term.
No comments:
Post a Comment