Thursday, May 26, 2005
A benign dictatorship?
This view is no doubt influenced by the enormous increase in rates of development, the swelling coffers of builders and the almost ubiquitous advertising of ‘lifestyle homes’ in recently released greenspace areas. It is also no doubt influenced by the ever-increasing amounts of money flowing in to politicians’ campaign donations.
Whether this view is justified, as a council bureaucrat, I cannot possibly say. Politicians in big towns like Brisbane spend bucket loads on election campaigns, most of it donated by well-wishers, like property groups and other businesses.
But when politicians advocate billion-dollar projects as the central plank of their election campaign, we are entitled to ask whether we have a Manchurian Candidate; a frontman, manipulated into a position of power to do the bidding of big business.
In Tweed Shire, just south of the border in NSW, residents’ cynicism appears to have been fully justified. After receiving a damming report into the conduct of the private company, “Tweed Directions” in the last Tweed elections, the NSW Local Government Minister immediately sacked all 11 councillors and placed the council in the hands of three administrators until the next election in December 2008.
The Minister decried that Tweed Directions - a property group - had sought to “buy candidates for their own purpose”.
Tweed Directions stood accused of being nothing more than a political slush fund, to help get pro-development candidates elected to council, with a view to cultivating more favourable planning decisions. The candidates – all of whom purported to be independents – had their campaigns bankrolled to the tune of $630,000 – an enormous sum in a small council like Tweed.
At least one of the benefactors to Tweed Directions was involved in a large property deal in one of the Shire’s property growth areas.
Defenders of the group included the sacked Mayor, who maintained that there was no evidence that any favours had been granted to property developers. He clearly chose his words carefully. Also defending Tweed Directions incorruptibility was Graham Staerk, who ran the Tweed Directions campaign. He said the group had been transparent and had never sought to hide its aim. He also accused the State Government of hypocrisy for receiving political donations from the very same developers.
So now the council will be run by bureaucrats for the next 18 months. How much of difference to council decision making this makes remains to be seen. How much elected members to council help or hinder enlightened decision making also remains to be seen. But provided the bureaucrats’ gifts register is closely watched, there probably wont be too many dramas.
A benign dictatorship?
Posted by Living with Matilda at 4:12 PM
This view is no doubt influenced by the enormous increase in rates of development, the swelling coffers of builders and the almost ubiquitous advertising of ‘lifestyle homes’ in recently released greenspace areas. It is also no doubt influenced by the ever-increasing amounts of money flowing in to politicians’ campaign donations.
Whether this view is justified, as a council bureaucrat, I cannot possibly say. Politicians in big towns like Brisbane spend bucket loads on election campaigns, most of it donated by well-wishers, like property groups and other businesses.
But when politicians advocate billion-dollar projects as the central plank of their election campaign, we are entitled to ask whether we have a Manchurian Candidate; a frontman, manipulated into a position of power to do the bidding of big business.
In Tweed Shire, just south of the border in NSW, residents’ cynicism appears to have been fully justified. After receiving a damming report into the conduct of the private company, “Tweed Directions” in the last Tweed elections, the NSW Local Government Minister immediately sacked all 11 councillors and placed the council in the hands of three administrators until the next election in December 2008.
The Minister decried that Tweed Directions - a property group - had sought to “buy candidates for their own purpose”.
Tweed Directions stood accused of being nothing more than a political slush fund, to help get pro-development candidates elected to council, with a view to cultivating more favourable planning decisions. The candidates – all of whom purported to be independents – had their campaigns bankrolled to the tune of $630,000 – an enormous sum in a small council like Tweed.
At least one of the benefactors to Tweed Directions was involved in a large property deal in one of the Shire’s property growth areas.
Defenders of the group included the sacked Mayor, who maintained that there was no evidence that any favours had been granted to property developers. He clearly chose his words carefully. Also defending Tweed Directions incorruptibility was Graham Staerk, who ran the Tweed Directions campaign. He said the group had been transparent and had never sought to hide its aim. He also accused the State Government of hypocrisy for receiving political donations from the very same developers.
So now the council will be run by bureaucrats for the next 18 months. How much of difference to council decision making this makes remains to be seen. How much elected members to council help or hinder enlightened decision making also remains to be seen. But provided the bureaucrats’ gifts register is closely watched, there probably wont be too many dramas.
Posted by Living with Matilda at 4:12 PM
Disclaimer:
| I am employed by Brisbane City Council. All views expressed in this blog are my own and in no way reflect the views of my employer. |
Weasel Word(s) of the day:
From WeaselWords.com.au
Recent posts:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home