 |
| CLICK TO GO TO THIS STORY |
ALEXANDRA HUMPHRIES, The Mercury, October 13, tells us that "FORMER Huon Valley mayor Peter Coad has called for a parliamentary or judicial inquiry into the “campaign” to have him removed as mayor... The statement comes after the council’s response to a draft board of inquiry report was leaked to the Mercury, indicating that the council asked Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein to call for Mr Coad to resign as mayor.... MORE: HUON VALLEY COUNCIL WANTED COAD GONE, SAYS REPORT CLICK HERE
Well he might say that but why stop at that? It is abundantly clear that Local Govt in Tasmania, and it might be argued Australia too, is broken ... seriously broken. In Tasmania, with an Act framed in 1993 [LINK] its not at all surprising that it be imagined that 'things' have moved on – or should have.
The HUON DEBACLE is but one bit of the nonsense being played out under the banner of "Local Governance" in Tasmania. Anyone paying any attention at all will know that Glenorchy, Glamorgan-Spring Bay Councils, Launceston even, are failing to deliver on the Local Govt. promise and purpose"
The idea that council's are populated by community representatives and 'public servants' becomes less and less credible by the day as does the Minister's refusal to force amalgamations. In one sense his reluctance is understandable given the political pressure he might well be under to 'do the amalgamations' this way or that in order to deliver this outcome or that.
Let alone any of that there is an argument being put about that there is a 'billion bucks to be saved' if amalgamation were to go ahead. If it were half that it'd be worth doing!
However there are too many councillors and aldermen on the 'public teat' for them to be demonstrating any enthusiasm at all to be done out of an income that requires little or no effort to receive.
They are only to be outdone by the so-called upper echelon of 'the administration' who are raking in more than the so-called 'representatives' and for about the same level of effort. The question has to be asked, just how many of them could win a position in the private world where productivity and accountability are criteria for maintaining a position? Indeed, how many could manage their own business profitably and deliver value to their customers?
These are rhetorical questions the answers to which are well known but rarely spoken of in 'polite company' – or even the community. Mouthing such things is ever likely to get one 'into a spot of bother' albeit that there may be truth to be found there.
The Local Govt. Act 1993 is without doubt deeply flawed and redundant at best. Its underpinning notion that the constituency can trust a council because it is 'the council' in any other circumstance would be laughable. But why aren't the punter laughing councils out of office? It's because the State Government, rather governments of all complextions over time, have protected 'councils' for reasons beyond comprehension.
There are enough reasons to initiate a judicial inquiry into Tasmania's Local Government 'SYSTEM' as its very clear that it costs way too much to deliver too few services. The Minister is proving himself to be timid and asking the question "why?" poses far too many uncomfortable questions. So be it, what are the answers. It's time that the impasse was broken and that a thorough judicial inquiry was held.
Item #1 for such an inquiry should be SECTION 65 of the Act closely followed by SECTION 62.
Too much is at stake and Tasmanian capacity to pay more and more for ever diminishing services is shrinking by the day. Not to put too fine a point on it, a great many 'leaners' need to be replaced by fewer 'lifters'!
- 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 the municipal area.
 |
| CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
Let alone any of that there is an argument being put about that there is a 'billion bucks to be saved' if amalgamation were to go ahead. If it were half that it'd be worth doing!
However there are too many councillors and aldermen on the 'public teat' for them to be demonstrating any enthusiasm at all to be done out of an income that requires little or no effort to receive.
They are only to be outdone by the so-called upper echelon of 'the administration' who are raking in more than the so-called 'representatives' and for about the same level of effort. The question has to be asked, just how many of them could win a position in the private world where productivity and accountability are criteria for maintaining a position? Indeed, how many could manage their own business profitably and deliver value to their customers?
These are rhetorical questions the answers to which are well known but rarely spoken of in 'polite company' – or even the community. Mouthing such things is ever likely to get one 'into a spot of bother' albeit that there may be truth to be found there.
The Local Govt. Act 1993 is without doubt deeply flawed and redundant at best. Its underpinning notion that the constituency can trust a council because it is 'the council' in any other circumstance would be laughable. But why aren't the punter laughing councils out of office? It's because the State Government, rather governments of all complextions over time, have protected 'councils' for reasons beyond comprehension.
There are enough reasons to initiate a judicial inquiry into Tasmania's Local Government 'SYSTEM' as its very clear that it costs way too much to deliver too few services. The Minister is proving himself to be timid and asking the question "why?" poses far too many uncomfortable questions. So be it, what are the answers. It's time that the impasse was broken and that a thorough judicial inquiry was held.
Item #1 for such an inquiry should be SECTION 65 of the Act closely followed by SECTION 62.
Too much is at stake and Tasmanian capacity to pay more and more for ever diminishing services is shrinking by the day. Not to put too fine a point on it, a great many 'leaners' need to be replaced by fewer 'lifters'!
No comments:
Post a Comment