SADLY WHAT IS BEING REVEALED AT TOWN HALL IS TROUBLING

PLEASE CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The most significant element of this story is that ultimately the Councillors got to deliberate on management's 'recommendations' rather than simply give them a BIGtick and send them off to the minister as it was apparently intended – and quite possibly it was what Minister Street would have liked too. 

Launceston's aldermen from the pre-Van Zetten era, and before, will tell you if you ask that open discourse around the table was how things were done. That is those ex-aldermen who are still around and who muse upon their rememberings of how things were once upon na time. However, until recently nobody was asking or listening.

Yes, it was a different time and yes, mistakes were made, and a lot of them, but they were out there pretty much in open and deliberated upon in open council around the table. This is not to suggest that we should aim to return to the 'good-old-days', certainly not. The State Govt., on the evidence, is feigning 'local governance reform' but in reality what seems to the case is that 'the operatives' are just tinkering with an Act installed in 1993 that even in its time was blighted by its obvious inadequacies and irrelevances. At that time the resistance to anything audacious or revolutionary was ruled out of order. 

What is truly bewildering in one way is the status quoism that's on display. On the other hand it is entirely expectable as the 'civic functionaries' have thousands upon thousands of reasons for keeping things the way they are. Each and every reason has a dollar sign in front of it. And, who pays, the hapless ratepayer and taxpayer and via every means those who were once 'servants' and are now busily turning themselves into overlords in an expanding fiefdom can devise. 

No wonder when the 21st C arrived, the Act was well past its use-by-date. It has been mouldering away and is becoming less and less relevant in a 21st C context each day. What is truly broken in local governance is the expectation that 'elected representatives' can actually 'represent' a diverse and diversifying constituency. In retrospect, it was only possible in Tasmania when the constituency imagined itself as Anglocentric cum Eurocentric and the rightful inheritors of a colonial past. In Tasmania that was before the terra nullius idea was debunked and before the full impact of a multi cultural reality revealed itself. For some, this is proving to be a bitter pill.

So, when when the press offers up a critique that cuts to the bone and the current mayor fires a shot in defence of the past and indeed the status quo, it is crystal clear that a raw nerve has been hit and that an element of of the 'incumbency' feels threatened. 

Then the rumours that two northern council's managements are are attempting broker a deal where others between them get divided up in some kind colonising amalgamation this is alarming inn so much that has everything to do with building power bases and nothing whatsoever to do with 'placemaking' let alone better, more transparent and more accountable governance. It has been attempted before and no doubt it will be again just so long as status quoism is the imperative.

To reiterate, the most significant element of this whole story is that ultimately the Councillors got to deliberate on management's 'recommendations' – arguably self-serving recommendations – rather than simply give them a BIGtick and then send them on their merry way to the  Minister's desk to ensure that nothing really changes. 

Every last element of the managerial recommendations for 'change', boiled down to their essentials, are cosmetic and delivered in a cloud of smoke with mirrors flashing and with trumpets heralding their importance.

What is needed in local governance is the model of democracy that is direct and deliberative –  DDD ... Direct Deliberative Democracy [Link] - [Link]. It is achievable and indeed being achieved elsewhere. 

.