Civic soapbox
ARE councils meddling in matters outside their core responsibilities; are they making decisions that amount to nothing more than tokenism?
Certainly, there is an increasing tendency for the third tier of government to express opinions on everything from human rights to nuclear disarmament.
Of course, that is their fundamental democratic right. But are councils — or, more precisely, some councillors — pushing the boundaries? Are they making strong, unambiguous declarations on national and international issues as a council (of individuals) or as elected representatives of the majority of ratepayers?
There should be no confusion about the role of local government. Key functions include community infrastructure (roads, libraries, public parks and gardens), public health, traffic, parking, waste, animal and environmental management, planning and building control and economic development.
There are other less obvious roles, of course, but one is left in no doubt the task is complex, onerous and challenging. More so when councils operate under the constant and critical eye of those who pay for the services they are entrusted to deliver
Local government is big business. Councils across the state employ 50,000 people, spend more than $7 billion on service delivery and $2 billion on infrastructure annually and manage more than $70 billion in public assets.
Yet some councillors use their privileged positions and the council chamber to push their personal viewpoints and interests.
The City of Port Phillip, no stranger to controversy, recently passed a motion calling for the Australian Government to sign a UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. It also flagged it will not invest in companies producing nuclear weapons.
Hardly a roads and rubbish matter. Not unexpectedly, it generated a stinging response from the independent, albeit conservative, public policy think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs. It described the decision as “posturing” and indicative of a “sad pattern of behaviour” in local government.
“No doubt other councils will come under pressure to abolish their own nuclear arsenals,” spokesman Gideon Rozner said.
Mr Rozner served up another zinger when Port
Phillip decided to join Melbourne, Darebin and Moreland councils in declaring a climate emergency, labelling it a “meaningless political fad”. “Will ratepayers be living under climate martial law?” he asked.
Unfortunately, sensible debate around our climate has become lost in the verbal — and now physical — war between believers and sceptics, with the silent majority watching aghast from the wings.
Here’s a simple test. Ask yourself — have the seasons changed, are storms more frequent and more intense, are our summers hotter? I will take that as a yes. But whether we call it climate change or a climate emergency is incidental when it comes to the bigger picture.
Even Greenpeace believes declaring an emergency is nothing more than a token gesture, but one that is a step towards strong action. Legal expert Michael Eburn, of the Australian National University, considers such declarations have no legal meaning whatsoever. “Unless there’s actually a written declaration that refers to an Act, and I haven’t seen one, then that’s all it is — symbolism.”
Words mean very little. Example: Earlier this year, Canada declared a climate emergency; next day it approved a huge expansion of an oil pipeline capable of transporting 600,000 barrels of oil a day. It is actions that count.
We have witnessed other councils wading into polarising issues such as same-sex marriage, rainbow flags (a forgettable saga for Surf Coast Shire), Australia Day, citizenship ceremonies, even a minute’s silence to mark the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan in World War II.
But here’s the crux of the matter. Did the councillors who dived into these issues do so from a personal perspective or on behalf of the people they represent? Did they know they had the majority support of ratepayers or did they simply assume ratepayers held similar views?
In most cases, I suggest personal interests came first.
Make no mistake, we live in angry times. Indeed, it seems as though civility and respect are being discarded in our society, replaced by rage, vitriol and conflict. Consider the recent protests on climate change and animal cruelty.
What should have been meaningful passive demonstrations degenerated into abuse, violence and, yes, lawlessness. Rather than garner community support, the militant activists who hijacked the protests did exactly the opposite.
In this brittle environment, councils should think long and hard about becoming involved in national and world affairs. Such matters are best left to politicians.
If councils persist in becoming involved in issues outside core business — without the rudimentary sense and common courtesy of canvassing the thoughts of ratepayers —- then the community should show their displeasure at the next election.
Graeme Vincent is a former Geelong Advertiser editor.