FOREWORD
Albeit that the City of Launceston Council – elected representatives & city bureaucrats – have identified “five key strategic directions”, essentially the ‘purposefulness’ evident in the City of Launceston's DRAFT Cultural Strategy is to have strategy with “five key strategic directions”. On the available evidence, put quite simply, ‘the strategy is to have a strategy’ albeit that it has been determined that there will be “five key strategic directions” that might well fit as ‘objectives’ in fulfilment of a ‘purpose’.
What purpose might there be? Speculatively, it might be to ‘acknowledge and celebrate the city’s/region’s cultural diversity’ – or something other than this. Given this, then there might well be a series of ‘objectives’ flowing from such a ‘purpose’ and consistent with that, there might well be ‘rationales’ for both the purpose and the objectives. It is contestable that these elements do in fact exist in the deliberations thus far.
Against such a background the fundamentals would exist for devising ‘purposeful strategies’ that meet the constituency’s aspirations and the demands of the objectives ‘in context’ with their identified rationales.
There is nothing new in this, it is ‘standard practice’ in Public Administration 101. Moreover, typically this approach delivers ‘Key Performance Indicators’ that, going forward, are required to assess outcomes. Again, standard practice in the:
- assessment of outcomes realised –anticipated and unanticipated;
- the assessment of weaknesses and strengths –anticipated and unanticipated;
- the assessment of the identified opportunities and threats –anticipated and unanticipated;
- the assessment of perceived risks and the unanticipated risks revealed; and
- the foundations upon which ‘the strategic policy decision making’ can be implemented or revised and adjusted if required – the task of governance.
Sadly, this class of strategic foundation building is not yet to be found ‘front and centre’ in the determination to DRAFT a ‘strategic way forward’ by consulting the people who are members of many, various, layered and diverse ‘cultural realities’ in the municipality/region within which ‘the strategic policy determination’ is to be applied.
ESTABLISHING KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The Draft Cultural Strategy laid out thus far has identified five strategic directions for the Council to determine a ‘policy or set of policies’ in Council’s ‘governance role’ to guide and direct ‘Council operations’. And they are:
- To respect Aboriginal Culture;
- To realise the potential of our cultural places and assets;
- To foster creative practices;
- Reveal our cultural stories; and
- Build and extend partnerships.
All five are laudable considerations and to argue against the worthiness of any one would be equivalent to denigrating motherhood – too silly to contemplate in a 21st C context.
Nevertheless, some contextual refinement might well be considered in translating ‘the draft’ into creditable, meaningful and appropriate strategic determinations. Most importantly, the clear articulation of the rationales informing the identification of these ‘five strategic priorities’ would be more than informative – given that they have been prioritised over and above all others.
Firstly, in respect to ‘Aboriginal Culture’ it would be appropriate and inclusive to “respect” the diversity of ‘Cultural Expression’ present and manifested in the municipality/region while acknowledging ‘Aboriginal Cultural expression past, present and future’ specifically. The articulation of the rationale for this would/should inform outcomes in a paradigm of inclusiveness.
Secondly, in respect to realising the potential of ‘places’ it would be appropriate to proactively acknowledge the ‘diversity’ of histories and cultural narratives linked to, indeed embedded in, ‘places, placemaking and indeed the cultural landscaping’ manifested in the municipality/region. Again, the articulation of the rationale for this would/should inform outcomes.
Thirdly, in respect to fostering – encouraging and developing – ‘creativity’ it would be appropriate to identify just which ‘creative practices’ are being deemed worthy of being prioritised and by what means. Again, the articulation of the rationale for this would/should not only inform outcomes but also contextualise the ‘strategic directives’ implemented in post draft realisation of the policy implementation. Again, the articulation of the rationale for this would/should inform and underpin policy implementation.
Fourthly, in respect to revealing our cultural stories in would be appropriate to attempt to be overtly inclusive in the revelations and ‘de-rank’ the processes via which the ‘revelations’ are facilitated. In a 21st C context, imposing a hierarchy of culturally determined narratives with say some assumed ‘high culture’ somehow ranked above the ordinary and vernacular is insensitive if not arrogant. Rankism is abusive, discriminatory, and/or exploitative behaviour towards people because of their assumed social status, asserted cultural identity and issues such as gender and age. Again, the articulation of the rationale for this would/should inform and underpin policy implementation.
Fifthly, in respect to building and extending ‘partnerships’ it would be appropriate and informative to articulate the kind of ‘partnership building’ and strategic alignments cum realignments that are being contemplated and possibly prioritised. Like the fourth strategic direction identified there is a ‘deafening silence’ in respect to the kinds of ‘partnerships’ anticipated and prioritised as being appropriate/desirable. For example, collaborative and/or scholarly relationships between say: geography, history and theatre; natural science and cultural practice in say the co-called ‘visual arts’; musicology and anthropology; vernacular culture and the literature of Western culture; philosophy, the enlightenment and mythology; and so on. The kinds of relationships, dynamic and passive, siloed and open, obscure and Anglo-centrically traditional, colonial and post-colonial, scientific and ‘artistic’, etc. etc. etc. that typically underpins scholarship plus the ‘raison d’etre’ for musingplaces, educational institutions and hopefully the driving forces that underpin 21st C research imperatives.
IDENTIFYING THE CIVIC CONTEXT
‘Meaning’ is always and unavoidably invested in ‘the context’ –here the civic context. Clearly, the process thus far has been driven by perceived/deemed ‘bureaucratic imperatives’ and the ‘consultation process’ this submission is focused upon comes rather late on the evidence. That the process thus far might be charactorised as being ‘bureaucratically self-serving’ is hardly surprising.
The missing factor is the articulation of a ‘SWOT Assessment’ – Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats assessments – open to Council’s constituency to consider, challenge where appropriate and inform them of the ‘civic context’ with which the ‘strategy’ is being and has been framed.
To be truly relevant the ‘strategy to have a cultural strategy’ needs to be open to rigorous critical deliberation given that those to whom the ‘strategic policy’ will/should reference almost every aspect of civic life. Moreover, the constituency has been conscripted to pay for the process thus far and likewise will be conscripted to pay for the process going forward. In Launceston, and many regional centres Australia wide, typically the ‘monetarisation’ of ratepayers’ and residents’ civic contributions via rates and rents is typically in the order of 6% of a rate demand. In Launceston, in some circumstances, that can in fact be something in the order of 10%.
Consequently, it is non-trivial to look for meaning and context in regard to the ‘presumed ready to implement consultation process’ and it is especially so in regard to the Tasmanian Local Government Act 1993 with its 20th C imperatives where increasingly it is evident that they are losing relevance in a 21st C context. This is especially so in the context of COVID-19, global strategic realignments and the increasing evidence that ‘climate change’ is upon us rather than impending.
Moreover, given that it is now on the record that Council is disinclined to consider inclusive ‘consultation processes’ such as Citizen’s Assemblies/Juries citizen participation in policy determination is being somewhat suppressed. Given that Council has, on the record, adamantly dismissed the proposition that ‘Citizen’s Assemblies’ are proactively viable, contemporaneously relevant and progressive on multiple occasions it is now a truism that Council is somewhat antithetic to ‘inclusiveness’ in regard to policy determination and especially so in regard to ‘cultural matters’ and ‘cultural landscaping’ or indeed ‘cultural placescaping’.
Somewhat poignantly, this consultation process is charactorised by Council’s reluctance or inability to embrace accountability and transparency in regard to the process and its policy intentions such as they may be. Likewise, given the ‘cultural context’ it is concerning that there is no evidence of anthological contextualisation in dereference, apparently, to bureaucratically oriented imperatives.
STATEMENT OF INTENT
This submission is presented as my means of contributing to the inclusive community consultation process that the City of Launceston presents as being open to criticism and critique in order that Council might implement a “Strategic Cultural Policy” that informs and underpins its planning and ‘placemaking cum placescaping’ strategies going forward. Also, it is intended to contextualise the questions below.
QUESTION 1
Will, or can, the consultation process now be opened up to a more relevant and more proactively inclusive consultation process that honours and acknowledges the totality of Launceston’s/Tasmania’s/the region’s cultural realities?
QUESTION 2
Will, or can, Council now contemplate initiating a proactively inclusive community consultation initiative such as the 2001 QVMAG Search Conference – a Citizens Assembly in fact – in order to determine an appropriately inclusive stand alone, fundable network of ‘community cultural enterprises’ that includes and interfaces with the region’s cultural institutions and organisations in a 21st C context?
QUESTION 3
Will, or can, Council now contemplate entrusting key infrastructure and cultural assets to a standalone corporate entity, ideally a trust, governed by appropriate experts, that is worthy of earning and maintaining the respect of Federal, State and Local government funding agencies, the corporate sector, private enterprises and benefactors, et al towards building upon and celebrating the region’s, the State’s and indeed the nation’s ‘cultural estate’?
Signed
Ray Norman
No comments:
Post a Comment