Content
Regional Bewilderment
31 July 2004
It is difficult to avoid returning to a theme about which I
wrote only a few weeks ago, but in view of the events of the last
week or so, it seems warranted. The subject, of course, is
'regional governance' and it has had quite a lot of media coverage
that has sparked interest locally and across the State. So how can
a University with such obvious regional interests resist
re-entering the debate?
With the Premier and Deputy Premier taking such a strong stance
on the need for regional governance reform, it wasn't altogether
surprising or illogical that SunROC placed that issue as one of its
priorities for the coming year, and a media conference by the
Chairperson made public the extent of that commitment.
What is difficult to grasp is that there now seems to be a more
rapid than expected movement to somehow gauge the desirability and
feasibility of governance reform. One media outlet announced that a
Brisbane firm would conduct a consultancy for SunROC, and then
presumably SunROC would report the outcomes and the recommendations
to the Deputy Premier. The Deputy Premier has determined that any
recommendations need to emanate from Councils, so working through
the combined councils' organisation, SunROC, would seem to be the
logical route. Certainly some media commentators welcomed this
approach because, they suggested, it would clarify what governance
model would benefit the rapidly growing Sunshine Coast region.
At another level, it may not be quite as simple as that. It is
possible, at least, for the issue to become more confused. Why?
The Chair of SunROC for example, has publicly expressed his
scepticism, even opposition, to boundary changes as he believes the
proposition lacks community support. The Mayor of Noosa has often
expressed his opposition to changes because not one explanation has
been advanced that convinces him would benefit Noosa. So two out of
the three mayors, including the Chairperson, are seemingly opposed
to any form of amalgamation, yet are about to establish terms of
reference, engage the consultants, monitor their work, receive
their findings, and make recommendations to the Deputy Premier. Or
some slight variation on that process, perhaps?
Such a situation could justifiably lead some people to believe
that this process is not altogether objective and free of
influence.
The way the study is conceived and run and interpreted will have
a profound influence on the life of this governance idea for years
to come. If it is a study preceded by an educational campaign where
some serious analysis is undertaken and promulgation of different
models explored, then we could all be enlightened about the issues,
the real choices and the costs before us. If it is mishandled
through bias or in haste, it could distort the seriousness of the
issue. Some have likened the potential of this process as akin to
the Republican debate where the majority moved to support a new
model in principle, but the devil was in the detail and
disagreement on a new model split the country.
One can only hope that in whatever process is engaged, that
despite the person and popular views of some, that there will be a
serious attempt to elaborate different views, and for there to be
an equally serious attempt within the communities of the Coast to
weigh the contrary arguments carefully.
If there is too tight a steerage of the looming process, the
threat of an engineered outcome will not be insignificant.
If, as so many people are now saying, the future of the Coast is
education and knowledge, there will likely never be a more
important time for us to start demonstrating it, with the maturity
that we use to interrogate this issue of regional governance.
Professor Paul Thomas is Vice-Chancellor of University of
the Sunshine Coast