I saw an interesting interview on the 730 Report the other day. It was with Tony Fitzgerald.
This was the man who headed the crime and corruption commission in QLD, some 25 yrs ago. While of course his commission looked into many issues, he has raise 4 simple principles of accountability and good governance in the interview.
- To govern for peace and good order of their electors, district or state.
- Treat all people equally with no privileged access.
- To make decisions in the best interest of the district or state & not by reference to personal considerations or considerations favouring contacts and so forth.
- To keep people properly informed, accurately informed and as promptly as possible in relation to all matters of public interest or potential controversy.
Now these principles can be applied I think to all levels of government
He further spoke about the public expectations declining in reference to these basic principles due to the elected members have ignored their electors for so long. These principles are the basis of what representative democracy is or stands for. Its where the elected members are elected to represented and govern on behalf of its people. Not run their own ideology and special interest groups.
You should watch the video on the link or read the transcript. Its quite interesting quite relevant what he is saying which is based around the upcoming Qld election. These principle I think apply equally to local council.
The various individuals/groups, who have spoken @ council this last couple of years should read the principles above and see how they where applied to their situations. Do they think the they have been the recipients of the good governance?
Its not just a matter of what you do or don’t like but whether a proper procedure has been truly followed, that does not mean a box ticking exercise, but good governance in the spirit those rules are intend to applied. This is the question to judge our elected members by?
A good comparison is the outcome of Burt St and McCabe St, this week at full council. One was deferred for more reports to be finalized. For me I don’t think it will help the outcome, but good to see they have a window of hope. Interestingly that night we heard current councillors speak of ex-Freo councillors involved in the process of speaking out for the deferral, due to the knowledge of council process , experience, etc they understand he said. So did that help them get a deferral, Now the Burt St group presented a strong sensible argument for not going ahead with R160. Yet theirs had no stay of execution, perhaps if they had had East Freo councillors talk on their behalf or an ex-Freo councillor on their side, could it have changed the result? So it brings me back to the 4 points of good governance mentioned above, did both groups get the same fair go?
Refer to the written submissions for and against the rezoning of Burt St, submitted to council, 2 private citizens for, 47 against, is the outcome fair representation?
We saw this in 2029 report, $90,000+ for we know best?