21ST C AMALGAMATION MYTHOLOGIES

 

PLEASE CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

As one watches one's ultimate USEbyDATE looming calling out the excesses of 'grumpy old men with computers' seems fair game. The mythology embedded in calls for and against Local Govt Amalgamations demonstrates an anarchic disconnect informed by 20th C sensibilities way, way past their USEbyDATE.

Local governance is actually about 'placemaking and placeshaping'– and fundamentally it is NOT about money. That's so unless one is looking for a 'side gig' as an 'elected representative' or if one is on the 'bureaucratic ladder' and aspiring towards a mega executive remuneration package – none of this is about 'governance'.

Let's be clear here, yes placeshaping costs money and yes, local governance needs its constituency to invest in this community enterprise in order to  garner the social and cultural dividends it wants and needs. Likewise, that 'investment' needs to be guaranteed as do the dividends – it is a circumstance of mutual obligation. 

Local Govt. in large part is where the rubber hits the road but sadly all the players are not in accord and for many the plot has been lost sight of long ago and all too often.

Once upon a time – even as late as the 20th C – it was necessary to elect, sometimes appoint, 'representatives' to do the decision making and the notion is deeply embedded in Eurocentric sensibilities. The notion being that all concerned could not physically be in the same place at the same time to give effect to the required decision making. Thus the model of 'Representational Democracy' evolved and has taken root. 

Grumpy old men, at the drop of the hat, will tell you that Winston Churchill once said that: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” Yes his cynicism was perhaps informed by hime being voted out of office within months of winning the Second World War. However, the world has changed, and is changing, and all the things Churchill imagined he was fighting for no longer apply.

In Australia, Representational Democracy – AKA indirect democracy (IDmodel) – is assumed to be 'the requirement' in a 'world' that is assumed to be monocultural cum quasi Christian cum judaic, Eurocentric, somewhat Churchillian, and within a colonising, empire building, tolerant/compliant paradigm. That might have seemed to be so once upon a time but no longer as diverse cultural realities assert their presence – represented or not.

The Eurocentric fundamental here is that 'the world' is here for humanity to exploit and thus somehow humanity needs to govern who can, for why, how and when. It is a concept that is contestable and it is being contested. It is especially so in regard to ID. The very notion that any group of people successful at a 'ballot box' in Local Govt. can any longer satisfactorily 'represent' the cultural spectrum within the boundaries somehow deemed to be appropriate for local governance is quite fanciful.

Turning to Local Govt. amalgamation, why would we actually want to compound the problems of a redundant concept by enlarging its irrelevance? Well elements of local governance might be consolidated but that is unlikely under a compounded and inept 19th/20th C IDmodel of governance. Moreover, it is totally unnecessary given the current alternatives available.

What alternatives? Well a 21st C machination of the 'Direct Deliberative Democracy' model (DDD) might be profitably explored given that it originally evolved in context that was not yet monolithic. The 'DDDmodel might well offer an alternative to the much touted calls for 'amalgamation' – typically looking for patches and repairs to fix this or that 'problem'. Under the DDDmodel there is:

• No imperative for representatives to be elected;
• No assumption that elected representatives can actually fulfil their representative function;
• No assumption that elected representatives in fact posses the skills, experience and qualification to acquit themselves as 'representatives'; and
• No assumption that in fact they, as representatives, have the constituency's support in their decision making.

Then all those on the current gravy train are unlikely to be looking to overturn the status quo. Well, Ronald Reagan  told the world, while President of the USA, that the status quo was quite simply Latin for the mess we are in. He had a point that lingers on and increasingly so. 

It is time for change and especially so in regard to cutting the money supply to that ubiquitous gravy train that sadly chugs along still in 29 Council Cambers around Tasmania. The  DDDmodel might well apply in Tasmania via:

• The appointment of commissions and commissioners to provide 'governance' in a local context;
• The State Govt. appointing the commissions and commissioners;
• The State Govt. facilitating the establishment of standing citizens' assemblies with random rotational memberships;
• The State Govt. legislating for transparency in regard to all aspects of local governance.
• The State Govt. legislating for citizen initiated referenda.

As the Medieval necessities, assumptions and aspirations that originally informed 'Representational Indirect Democracy' (RID) fade into irrelevance with the communication possibilities that can no longer be considered "new", a paradigm shift is required. The DDDmodel arguably could and should be invoked and sooner rather than later.

With 'smart phones' constituents might well be able to vote for themselves, ZOOMattend meetings, conferences forums etc. and represent themselves in multiple ways. Oh horror of horrors if you are a passenger on ubiquitous gravy train.

Putting first things first, the State Govt. must put the mechanisms in place whereby the passengers of convenience currently on the 'gravy train' are required to actually earn their way or look for alternative transport. 

Will the State Govt. do this? Well, we might see young people looking to a sustainable future asking their 'representatives' to do so. However, there will be precious few 'grumpy old buggers' lending their voices to the cause. All we can hope for is for there to be enough voices to ensure that there is change.

Ray Norman

LETTER IN THE EXAMINER ... WEST Tamar Councillor Peter Kearney is correct indicating council amalgamation should have been included in the local government review and George Town Mayor Greg Kieser is wrong when he says "to date no one has tabled a feasible model" ................ As both gentlemen well know, in 2018 consultants KPMG published the Tamar Valley Feasibility Study, which showed amalgamation of the two councils was perfectly feasible; not only that but amalgamation would save their ratepayers at least $1.3 million a year yet, for inexplicable reasons, it never proceeded (The Examiner, August 9). ................. The Tamar Valley Feasibility Study showed amalgamation can have positive financial advantages for ratepayers and, if these sort of savings can be made by amalgamating two relatively small councils, one wonders at the savings that can be made by including Launceston (and maybe other bordering councils) in the mix to create a single Tamar Valley Council............... As a West Tamar ratepayer, this sounds attractive to me. I believe all ratepayers should be directly consulted on such a proposal. ......... Jim Collier, Legana.