Read together these two letters make some sense out of recent events and the State Govt Minister looking to flex his mussels in regard to the forced 'amalgamations' of Councils. Minister Street is absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that 29 Councils in Tasmania is way too many and that the status quo is unsustainable.
The problem being how cut to the numbers, and make the fiscal savings and have accountable local governance. Politically it is difficult to sack Councillors and Aldermen but ultimately it will need to be done. It is the way of the world and it is what it is! Then comes the problem of viable and accountable 'representation'. In any event there is a need to first determine the needs of the people being 'governed' and to assist them in overcoming their fears – and there is much to fear.
Interestingly, there appears to be a sense of discomfort among the ranks Councillors and Aldermen given that they personally have something to lose – especially those serving on Council as a SIDEgig. Self interest can be an enabling force yet all too often it can be a powerful inhibitor.
The hurdle here is 'representation' but Indirect Elected Representational Democracy (IERD)does not come with an automatic guarantee of accountable representation given the networks of vested interests that become evident. It may well be the 'governance system' that the Western World advocates but it does not automatically offer transparent accountable representation – arguably to the contorary.
On the other hand, 'appointed representatives' actually can offer a greater level of accountability given that there are mechanisms put in place to hold the incumbents to account. You actually do not need to wait for an election to hold appointed non-performing members to account if the protocols are there. Nevertheless, it is all important that equitable and effective mechanisms actually do need to be put in place.
Noel Manning in his letter raises the notion of a Ward System. It is something that in Tasmania might well have value and especially so if the State were to opt for the much touted 'three Council or Commission model' for the State's local governance. This approach has considerable merit if it comes with mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability to the constituency and the 'entities' are 'policed' by the Minister for Local Government and Cabinet.
Brian khan's letter is more than interesting when he alerts us to the paucity of expertise in some, arguably many local governance jurisdictions where General Managers have inappropriately usurped the powers of governance and virtually deemed that they, all by themselves, have the wherewithal to deliver on the 'expertise' provisions in the Local Govt Act 1993.
Of course GM's, along with any reasonable thinking person. could not have the 'domain knowledge' that engineers, architects and any number of professionals have and GMs should not act as if they do. Nevertheless, it is more than concerning that the Act quite deliberately affords them the latitude so to do and for Councils not to have such 'experts' within their administrations. This turns out to be a serious, albeit surreptitious, flaw in the reigning status quoism at work local governance's operational wing.
In the mapping, water management is focused on 48 catchments across Tasmania. These catchments include one or more watercourses and have been defined at a suitable scale for resource management based on a combination of water flow, land tenure and land management.
Given this, it would make almost perfect sense to base a Ward System on catchments. By extension, catchments could similarly be the basis for 'Catchment Assemblies' with random rotational membership tasked to ensure that their relevant 'placemaking' in regard to their council/commission was being taken account of in a open and transparent manner.
While these 'entities' would need resourcing, prudent planning would ensure that they be of a scale that does not repeat the top heavy bureaucratic modelling that all too many Councils have allowed to evolve into. The new Commissions/Councils would and should surely be carrying the required managerial role under their patronage and guidance.
'Albeit somewhat audacious, a 'catchment based ward system' seems to be a proposition with as much merit as it has promise. This is especially so given Tasmania's histories and the relative diversity of the State's cultural placescaping over time - pre-colonisation up to the present.
It is increasingly evident that Tasmania's current model of Local Govt. and the kind of democracy that was put in place in 1993 is well past its use-by-date and consequently it has continually lost functionality. The 'givens' that informed the modelling in 1993 even then were anachronistic in retrospect. Currently 'that democratic model' is losing currency, and along with that, any functionality it has retained almost by the minute.
For example, there are incidences of management distorting the roles, and sometimes blending the functions of governance and management. That is, blending governance's strategic, policy and legislative role with management's implementation function. Even when this might not be the case the 'goings-on' in camera and their circumstances raise concerns to do with corruption and corruptibility.
 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE |
John Adams, American statesman, attorney, diplomat, writer, and Founding Father, said and somewhat poignantly “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” There is a pungent smell about the current model of local governance in Tasmania in that it too seems to be holding a pistol to its head.
Indeed, Minister Street is now saying, and unambiguously, that the 'status quo' is unsustainable and clearly in acknowledgement of 'the model's' fading relevance and short falls that come to his attention.
Looking to another more recent American President, Ronald Reagan, it was he who told us that the 'status quo' was quite simply Latin for the mess we are in. And, after saying so, he watched on as Soviet Russia murdered itself much like Adams said was inevitable.
Tasmania it seems always wants to learns its lessons the hard way. Well we have, and at considerable expense. Now is the time for change, real change, and hopefully enlightened change without any hint of the status quo being in the pathway ahead.
In placemaking, 'place' determines the cultural realities within it, and all the while those 'realities' are at work shaping 'place' and the 'placedness' that makes them 'homeplaces'. All this is at the very core of local governance – democratic or autocratic governance.
In placemaking Indirect Elected Representational Democracy (IERD) can never be the SILVERbullet it is presumed to be in the Western world. For instance, 21st C digital technologies have come to a point where they can empower Direct Deliberative Democracies (DDD) well beyond anything the IRDmodel currently delivers in Tasmania, or indeed anywhere ever.
Therefore, IF there is to be CHANGE let it be real change in a 21st C context unhindered by the failings of that the unsustainable 'status quo' clearly operates within – that redundant, now quite dysfunctional,19th cum 20th C mindset.
No comments:
Post a Comment