A COMMON criticism of local councils is that they stray too far from what should be their ‘‘core’’ functions.
Defining a core function isn’t an easy thing, however, as councils tend to discover whenever they attempt to review their operations or hive off ‘‘unnecessary’’ roles or assets.
No doubt these dilemmas will again arise as Newcastle City Council gets down to the nitty gritty of its recent review of non-statutory services.
The usual suggestions are all there: higher fees and charges, cuts to various services and the sale of a variety of buildings and pieces of land.
These decisions are always especially difficult for Newcastle City Council, which is expected to provide services and facilities of a regional nature as well as the usual local basics that most councils must offer. In a perfect world these supra-regional functions would be recognised by federal and state governments and funded in the same way that similar facilities are paid for in capital cities.
For the time being, however, Newcastle has no other choice than to pursue a ‘‘sustainable’’ budget realistically aligning all its outgoings with its income.
Some of the ideas to surface in the latest review are certainly worth close scrutiny. The sale of Beresfield golf course, for example, is probably a good idea – provided the property isn’t sacrificed on a low market. As councillor Graham Boyd has pointed out, the cost of simply owning some properties far outweighs the benefits that ownership confers on the community.
An obvious good idea is to work more closely with neighbouring councils to achieve economies of scale and eliminate expensive duplication. Much has already been achieved in this area but there is scope for more co-operation in community service provision.
It is perhaps unfortunate that these deliberations are taking place in a local government election year, since few things are more damaging to sensible discussion about the allocation of scarce community resources than political grandstanding and electioneering.
Righting old wrongs
MOST Australians would be surprised and disappointed to learn that aspects of their nation’s constitution are racist.
Framed at a time when social attitudes were vastly different from today, the legal document on which Australia’s nationhood rests still enshrines provisions that discriminate against Aboriginal citizens.
A new report has recommended updating the constitution to provide fair recognition for Australia’s original inhabitants and it is suggested that a referendum to seek approval for constitutional revisions may be held before the next federal election.
Australia has made considerable progress towards racial reconciliation, starting with the 1967 referendum that gave indigenous citizens the vote and culminating most recently with a formal apology for past wrongs.
Constitutional reform would be further evidence of goodwill and a sincere desire to make Australia a nation of true equals.
Email a friend