Councillor 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 cliches but as it turns out this is a case of cliches 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\
