A long time ago serving on a local council was a honorary duty often undertaken by a small business owner. It was helpful if those standing for election were well known in the community and getting elected surely enhanced their social standing. In many cases, it served as a springboard for a later run at state or Federal parliament. "Councillor "was an unpaid civic duty !
As villages morphed into towns and towns grew to become cities the responsibilities of both mayors and councillor's took on a much greater workload and with that came reimbursement by way of salary and expenses and the provision of cars and communication equipment. Accepting oversight of a budget that ran to millions of dollars became a full time job that needed professional skills - and an appropriate pay level.
We have now reached the stage where seven state members of parliament are also holding down jobs as either councillors or mayors as well as serving as state MP's - and in some cases holding ministerial rank. It is highly likely that this clash of responsibilities will see them miss up to forty days of parliamentary sittings.
The rules were recently amended to try and resolve this problem. A person serving on a council may hold that position for the remainder of that term of local government, but can not stand for reelection at the following election. That was intended to protect councils from the need to hold a costly by-election should the rules force a sitting council member to resign upon entering parliament. As things stand, the next round of local government elections will be held in September, 2016.
The base salary for a New South Wales state member of parliament is $ 149,451 plus electoral allowances. The stipend for one mayor also sitting in parliament runs to $ 82,000. It is hard to see how two very demanding jobs can be managed at the same time and at the standard expected by both ratepayers and taxpayers. While allowing councils to avoid costly by-elections it leaves either taxpayers or ratepayers unrepresented, depending on which job primarily occupies the time of their elected representative.
This raises the vexing question of how to disassociate items under discussion from the personal interests of those elected to make those decisions. The forced amalgamation of councils will certainly be a forthcoming issue in this state and it would seem less than impartial to have that vote in the hands of people who may also be serving members of a council so involved. Likewise, if the issue coming to a vote involves industrial relations, surely a sitting member who is also a card carrying member of a trade union should be excluded on conflict of interest grounds ?
The rules of fair play require any conflict of interest items that arise to be declared at both council and parliamentary level and a voluntary withdrawal from a vote undertaken. Members of parliament are required to lodge a pecuniary listing of financial interests and shares held by them and their families upon election. Strict rules apply to financial donations to both individuals and political parties. The sharing of both council and parliamentary interests makes keeping this balance difficult.
It is generally conceded that the workload of those elevated to the ministry is far heavier than that of a backbencher. Perhaps a ruling that those holding both a council and a parliamentary seat be excluded from the ministry until the council term expires would be a satisfactory way of resolving this problem. Should it then be expedient to elevate a newly elected member to cabinet the option of an immediate resignation from council would then be imperative.
There is an expectation that both levels of government require the full time attention of those elevated to office !
No comments:
Post a Comment