Republic referendum vs Sewage referendum ...
... spot the funding difference.
In 1999, the Federal government established funding guidelines for the referendum held in relation to the proposal that Australia become a Republic.
MP Malcolm Turnbull (then of the Australian Republican Movement) chaired the Yes advertising campaign committee.
Each of the Yes and NO committees had access to up to $7.5 million to develop and run a national advertising campaign for or against the proposed republic model.
The advertising campaign committees developed advertising campaigns to be run through media outlets of their choice in the three to four weeks leading up to the referendum vote.
These campaigns were intended to inform a robust public debate about the issues and present alternative views directly to the voters.
The Government’s role was limited to checking that each committee’s proposals met the basic standards, the committees remained responsible for the content of the campaigns.
See - Guidelines for Republic referendum advertising campaigns.
Flash forward to 2006.
On 21 April, Mayor Thorley rammed through Toowoomba City Council a proposal that it spend $460,000 of ratepayers' money on the Yes campaign while providing NO money whatsoever to the No campaign.
Councillors voting in favour of this resolution were:
- Mayor Thorley
- Deputy Mayor Ramia
- Councillor Englart
- Councillor Albion
- Councillor Alroe
- Councillor Schneider
See- Council shame file (including email addresses and home phone numbers should you wish to voice your displeasure at their decision).
Also see - Ratepayer's cash only funds Water Futures "yes" case.
Malcolm Turnbull (who would have kicked up a fuss if his Republic campaign had been starved of Federal funds) is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister with responsibility for water issues.
He has given conditional approval for Federal funding for Mayor Thorley's controversial recycled sewage project, subject to a number of conditions including a referendum of Toowoomba voters on the issue.
One can only wonder if MP Turnbull contemplated that Mayor Thorley would pull such a stunt as part of her attempts to force Toowoomba residents to drink recycled sewage.
To those involved in the debate, it is no surprise.
Mayor Thorley's latest antics show a Council desperately clinging to the hope that, if they throw sufficient funds at its Yes campaign and starve the No campaign of funding, Council will somehow get majority approval from Toowoomba voters for the recycled sewage project.
For 10 months, the Mayor has ignored attempts to have all water source alternatives independently assessed.
Why?
Because she knows that the recycled sewage project won't stack up on an independent assessment.
So, when she has to conduct a referendum, what does she do?
Create an uneven funding playing field to give her a perceived advantage in marketing her recycled sewage project.
Once again Mayor Thorley and the Council have completely misunderstood the nature of the game.
By allocating equal funds to both the Yes and No campaigns, Mayor Thorley would have shown to the community that she was willing for the recycled sewage project to be judged on its merits. (If she had any confidence in the project, she would do this.)
By denying funding to the No campaign, she has provided at least $460,000 in anti-advertising for the Yes campaign.
Her Yes campaign will forever be known as Mayor Thorley's $460,000 Yes campaign.
It is hard to see how her actions are "conduct which promotes and maintains the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the local government and the good rule and government of its area" (See - Code of Conduct for Councillors).
She has called into question the integrity of the Council and its decision making.
She will probably be subject to formal complaints and official investigations into Council's decisions.
Mayor Thorley, is it all really worth it?
posted by Concerned Ratepayer at 7:47 AM
5 Comments:
From the Republic referendum:
Accountability arrangements for use of public funds
Committees are to ensure that all costs incurred in relation to the campaign do not exceed the $7.5 million. No additional funding will be provided.
Each committee is to submit a proposed budget for consideration by the Ministerial Council on Government Communications (MCGC).
A Commonwealth official will work with each committee to monitor commitments and assist with control of expenditure against the strict budget limit.
Proper records are to be kept for all decisions relating to the use of public funds and administration of contracts. Accounts are to be kept for any expenditure.
Records are to be made available for audit as required and transferred in full to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
The Committees are to confine their activities to the use of the Commonwealth funding and not accept donations or other funding.
Commonwealth funding and contractors engaged for the committee are to be used only for the purposes of the proper performance of the committee’s function as set out above.
Contracting decisions are to be consistent with the principle of value for money, having regard to the capacity of the contractor to deliver and to the full costs of the contract.
Competitive selection processes should be considered where they would be feasible in terms of timing and not involve unwarranted costs for the committee or prospective contractors.
Arrangements should be made for proper supervision of contractors and monitoring of performance.
9:05 PM, April 22, 2006
Why would any council member want to fund a note vote. That would not be fair to the community to allow indepenant decision making, now would it.
Thorley has not time for anyone who has any negativity or concerns about our health and standard of living, she is hell bent on this project because the Beaty Government has plans for Effluent water from Brisbane to be piped to Toowoomba for recycling. So how much will our dams actually get, well if it doesn't rain and we get a so called 25% (in my mind 100%) of recycled sewage in our dams, then our dam will become pure recycled sewage.
We all know the drought is hard, but pumping 25% of what is left will eventually be 100% in our dams. Come on people, start doing the maths and think about the future of this project and the plans for the 400Km effluent pipeline from Brisbane, you don't need a degree to figure it out.
The council lies, does not tell the truth about future plans, and is covering up the fact they have failed Toowoomba. Funding the Yes vote only is just another mark for the council proving they don't know what they're doing.
Is anyone really willing to fill our dams with the bi-product of this :
http://tws.shopone.com.au/Photos/?z8iv2mks17oA9xWm4cJaoGKtra6a2mKsBGV
1:32 PM, April 23, 2006
yuk! that is rather crappy water! we shouldn't be made too drink this
7:52 PM, April 23, 2006
This debacle is not about independent thinking. Mayor Thorley said she wanted people to be aware of "all the facts" but this was just political rhetoric. It's about spending the public's money to try to force Toowoomba residents to accept drinking recycled sewage at mixture rates not done anywhere else in the world.
12:40 AM, April 25, 2006
If the water is drinkable, then it shouldn't matter where it came from. I am neither for, nor opposed to this but it is an issue. It doesn't bother me either way, as long as we actually have water.
We pretty much need water for everything. Even if we had a seperate pipe with treated water coming into our homes for our showers and washing, that would help a great deal.
Drink one water, and use the treated stuff for other things. Where's the problem in that?!
3:09 PM, May 26, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home