 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STORY |
Tasmania's Auditor
General (AG), it seems, can see the inbuilt inadequacies of Local Government in the State.
Sadly, Local Govt’s inadequacies opens otherwise intelligent and hard working
people up to unwelcome speculations about their performance. Worst of all, it
also shields rent seekers from close scrutiny.
The AG’s
recommendation that Council contracts for goods and service provision should be
put out to tender if the anticipated expenditure is $100K or over. That can be
bureaucratically circumvented by project splitting but the implied discipline
is a sound notion.
The trick is pitching
the dollar value at the right level. It must be said that Councils could impose
their own levels below the AG’s $100K. They shouldn't need the AG to tell them! In fact when it comes to consultancies
there is a very good case for the open tender kick-in point to be $50K with the
assessment being provided outside the administration. However, in reality the
application of such tendering protocols will not always be easy.
Launceston
presents an interesting problem that the AG does not seem to have addressed.
Over time Launceston has grown to a point where it now has some very large
service delivery divisions. If the AG’s tendering recommendation was applied to
the so called non-core service provision there would be huge savings to be
made.
For example if the
management of facilities like the Aquatic Centre, the Football Stadium, plus
the museum and theatre even, were put out to competitive tendering it is hard
to see how there wouldn’t be savings to be made.
Rather than
applying the tendering protocols within such operations there is very good case
to be considered that would put the management of the entire operation out to
tender. It goes without saying that such tenders would come with many
conditions and safeguards relative to quality assurance, competency and
security. Also, the tender periods for this class of operation.
As matters stand,
the citizenry that requires civic services are billed by their provider for the
delivery of service provision in an uncompetitive environment. More to the point, the services
that are provided are in no real sense open to criticism and critique either.
Also, rarely is there meaningful consultation with the citizenry and
accountability is left to election time.
Launceston may be an extreme case but similar circumstances will apply across the State to various extremes.
Clearly the AG is
seeing the need for more accountability and just putting new tendering
processes in place are not, by themselves, likely to deliver the kind of
outcomes the citizenry needs and should be able to expect.
1 comment:
We have read your website and other relevant materials and wish to alert you to the fact that:
1) Launceston is not a wasteful, lazy Council that squanders $100 million every year to no discernable result
2) The 27% of budget (around $27 million) that goes to entertainment and education activities is the best way to use ratepayers money to deliver real benefits; AND
2a) No other organisation could do better what Council does in this regard
3) Our accounts are not vague on detail, in fact our accounting arm as run by Mr Tidey provides greater fiscal probity than could be expected; AND
3a) Our policies of being open and transparent are backed up by easy access to our records by citizens, and the easy availability of easy to understand documents and records
4) We have, if not the best, then one of the best General Managers in Tasmania. A man who is across every aspect of his brief and who brings his considerable training and expertise to bear to the benefit of all Launcestonians
5) Our policies and practices are inclusive of everyone in the community and we have the total respect and support of businesses and citizens as a result
6) Our Mayor and representatives are focussed on local needs and are across not only the detail in their brief but also the bigger picture
7) The results achieved by the Launceston Council over the last decade have more than justified the approximately $1 billion spent in the period, with many local attractions and infrastructures that combined, make Launceston an example to local government everywhere
The result of all of this is to show that we are not a corrupt and inept group that wastes millions of our ratepayers' monies each year without ever being accountable No, instead we are dynamic and ahead of the curve which is the reason for the constantly improving state of our city and surrounds and makes us the talk of major industries like tourism, fine dining and finance.
Post a Comment