Goals > Letter of the week

From the Sydney Sunday Telegraph May 2010

NSW PREMIER Kristina Keneally has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on privately chartered jets, entertainment and even the laundry in the five months since coming into office.

The $4 million spending blitz by the Premier's Office has included the hire of indoor plants, advertising, taxis, private carparking spaces and road tolls.

More than $100,000 was also spent on privately chartered aircraft as Ms Keneally took to the skies to boost her profile soon after taking on the top job in December.

The details of Ms Keneally's expenses are contained in documents obtained by the Opposition under Freedom of Information and include expense claims lodged by both Ms Keneally and dumped premier Nathan Rees over the past 10 months.

Receipts show Ms Keneally eclipsed Mr Rees' spending by over $1 million.

Together, the two premiers' officers have cost taxpayers a staggering $7 million since last July.

A post from an eastern suburbs of Sydney resident - showing her anger over the NSW taking the power away from the local community.  

As if it wasn’t enough that the current hotel totally dominants Coogee and contributes to the public drunkenness and violence, the owners of Coogee Bay Hotel now want to build a 14 storey tower in Coogee, something that will completely destroy Coogee’s village atmosphere and make Coogee into the Gold Coast of the Eastern Suburbs. And even worse, Randwick Council will have no say in the proposed development as the development process has been taken from the hands of Council. Instead the NSW Government will assess and determine the proposal. Given the track record of the NSW Government and their obsession with job creation versus long term sensible planning and the rights of residents, will locals get a fair hearing on this proposed “monster” development. One thing is certain, only co-ordinated action by residents and politicians alike can stop this outrageous proposal from going ahead. We are talking about a fight for the future of Coogee. This development would destroy the soul and spirit of Coogee. Everyone agrees that the Swiss Grand is an eyesore on the front of Bondi (and was the subject of a corruption enquiry) and no development of this scale today would ever be allowed to destroy the beachfront of Bondi Beach. Why is this even being contemplated in Coogee? Australia has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Western world, why can developers get away with pretending that this will “help the people” when we know this is just about development profit. And as for the developers claim that they have developed this proposal in response to public concerns about safety and drunkenness. Well, I have never heard anything more laughable in all my life. Do they think we are all brain dead? Having contributed to a culture of public drunkenness with extensive outdoor drinking areas they say they will now cut down on some of the drinking areas, if we just let them build a 14 story, 8,500 square metre development. So, they create a problem and now they will make hundreds of millions of dollars to fix it and the only small twist is that they will build a monstrous eyesore to fund it. Is that their logic? We must stop this development. It will destroy Coogee if it goes ahead.

Geoff Lake, President of the Australian Local Government Association has written another excellent article in this week's ALGA Newsletter.

He writes: 'The desire of Australians to have a greater say in the way they are governed and for relevant decisions to be made at the local level is constantly highlighted.

People involved in local government will recall the big legal win by the Macedon Ranges Shire Council in Victoria last year which asserted the importance of community input in planning decisions.

In 2005, an application to install 50 poker machines in the only hotel in the Victorian town of Romsey was refused by the Macedon Ranges Shire Council after 79% of its population voted against the poker machines. The unsuccessful applicant then appealed the decision to the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation. The appeal was refused and so the applicant then took it to the Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal, which overturned the previous decisions and approved 30 machines against the wishes of the local community.

Based on the widespread community opposition to the machines and the likely impacts on health and social outcomes, the Council then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Council won and the victory sent a strong message that community consultation is not simply a minor tick-the-box step in a wider process. The decision supports the principle that community views are important and must be taken seriously by decision makers and the decision reaffirmed the role of local government in vigilantly representing these views.

The Macedon victory set a healthy precedent, reminding governments of the importance of community consultation and of the community's desire to play a direct role in decision making at their local level.

This importance has been further demonstrated this week with the release of Griffith University's federalism project survey which revealed a growing demand by the community of more locally devolved decision making. The survey found that only 17 per cent of people say that the states are the most effective layer of government, whereas 27 per cent (up from 20 per cent) say that local councils are our most effective level.

Michael Stutchbury, the Economics editor of The Australian, noted in an article on 13 April that now one in two of us favour shifting power below the state government tier. The Griffith University study shows that people expect a greater role for local government in government decision making and service delivery and the Macedon decision is a practical example why.

It is for this reason that ALGA and state and territory local government associations continue to beaver away at building the case for the necessary funding and constitutional reform to unshackle councils and to enable local government to better be able to meet community expectations.

It makes no sense at all that there remains in 2010 a serious constitutional hurdle to the Commonwealth sharing centrally collected taxation with councils at the local level. If the Australian system of government is to function better - and more importantly: if it is to function in accordance with the will of the Australian public - then we must fix these outdated and archaic structures set up in a colonial era long ago.'

It's great to see that the momentum for structural change is coming from all directions. In a twist of irony, Brumby could be doing the Beyond Federation cause a great favour by forcing a referendum on the issue of health care, since the public have a clear desire to have this problem fixed. Michael