Post by keith on May 15, 2008 12:43:57 GMT -5
ONE of the topics discussed at this month’s 2020 summit in Canberra was the future structure of the three levels of government.
According to the summit papers, many submissions supported a re-evaluation of the current three-tiered government system while others strongly supported local governments having more direct funding links to the Commonwealth as well as recognition in the Constitution. One of the consequences of this could be a two-tier system with a central Commonwealth government and various local or regional governments.
Currently, local government is at the behest of
state governments. the consequence has been a rigorous control of the structure and operation of local government. The driving motivation has been more efficient councils and greater accountability, transparency and minimisation of opportunities for corruption.
The result has been a very structured local government with a heavy emphasis on procedure within the operational (or non-elected) sector of each local government.
One consequence has been a diminution of the role of elected representatives. This is evident in policy development. Unlike state and federal governments, councils do not allocate policy responsibilities to individual councillors or encourage councillors to develop an expertise in an area.
Rather, council has committees that mirror the structure of the bureaucracy. This is the opposite of state and federal governments where the bureaucracy serves the policy areas developed by the party in power.
So instead of having councillors who develop an expertise in community services, or health and recreation, or roads and traffic, they have collective responsibilities across the board.
To preserve their relevance to the system, councillors might consider how they fit in the structure and if they would better serve their electors if they involved themselves directly in policy research, advocacy and implementation.
They may find their direct relationship with the community is a powerful tool in retaining their own relevance in the future of this level of government.
According to the summit papers, many submissions supported a re-evaluation of the current three-tiered government system while others strongly supported local governments having more direct funding links to the Commonwealth as well as recognition in the Constitution. One of the consequences of this could be a two-tier system with a central Commonwealth government and various local or regional governments.
Currently, local government is at the behest of
state governments. the consequence has been a rigorous control of the structure and operation of local government. The driving motivation has been more efficient councils and greater accountability, transparency and minimisation of opportunities for corruption.
The result has been a very structured local government with a heavy emphasis on procedure within the operational (or non-elected) sector of each local government.
One consequence has been a diminution of the role of elected representatives. This is evident in policy development. Unlike state and federal governments, councils do not allocate policy responsibilities to individual councillors or encourage councillors to develop an expertise in an area.
Rather, council has committees that mirror the structure of the bureaucracy. This is the opposite of state and federal governments where the bureaucracy serves the policy areas developed by the party in power.
So instead of having councillors who develop an expertise in community services, or health and recreation, or roads and traffic, they have collective responsibilities across the board.
To preserve their relevance to the system, councillors might consider how they fit in the structure and if they would better serve their electors if they involved themselves directly in policy research, advocacy and implementation.
They may find their direct relationship with the community is a powerful tool in retaining their own relevance in the future of this level of government.