Opinion
By Ipswich City Council Acting Mayor Wayne Wendt
One of the great things about Australia is that it is built on a platform of democracy. As citizens, we know that we won’t always be in the majority on all issues. But we know we will be heard, and that our voice will be valued alongside those of our fellow country men and women.
Over the past week, Ipswich City Council has been posed with the possibility of expulsion. Despite an election, there is a very real threat that the collective voice of the people could be overturned. Councillors openly acknowledge that there have been multiple allegations pointed at people either employed by, or who have worked with, this council – albeit none of them yet proven.
While we do not know all the details of every charge, we do know a couple of very important things:
- That many of the charges relate to paperwork.
- That many of the charges relate to charitable donations.
- That most of the events which led to allegations happened more than 12 months ago, some of them dating back seven or eight years.
We also know that each councillor was elected on a mantra of honesty, accountability and trust that we serve in the best interests of all who live in this fine city. There are offices in each of 10 Divisions, and I for one can certify with some authority that we hear your thoughts and opinions daily.
We also hear your needs, and it is our job to relay those issues to council staff for assessment, and indeed action. This is what our constituency voted us to do – to work hard, and to make our community as liveable as any city in the world. Where we live is our home, and we all want to be proud of who we are.
Democracy makes this happen. Every four years, everyone over the age of 18 gets their chance to say who they believe is best positioned to make positive things happen. Collectively, it is the public’s right to maintain the status quo. It is also their right to initiate change.
The State Government, if it decides to take this right from the hands of the people, is questioning a system on which this great nation was built. Such a decision also risks taking away a right to representation, a simple system whereby people can approach their local councillor to make a complaint, offer a pat on the back, or suggest ways their community can be more beautiful, safer, or inherently functional.
Most of us do what we do because we care, because we are part of the community we represent, because we are proud to call our constituency “home”. Yes, there will be individuals who will have their day in court. That too, is part of the democratic system. But to take a fundamental right – the right to have a say – from the hands of the people is not the way to serve perceived justice.
Is he not listening to what a vast number of Ipswich residents are and have been saying for a long time? It’s time to clear out and start afresh. They don’t know who they can and can’t trust and to say they would lose their voice is just ridiculous. Those voices have been silenced for too long. It is time those who wish to serve as a voice of the ratepayers did just that instead of issuing veiled threats that if you accept what the State wants to do you will lose that voice. The State has FINALLY listened to what the ratepayers of Ipswich want. It is time Wayne Wendt and all the others desperately trying to clutch at straws to save their jobs, did the same.
0.5
1
5
4.5
1.5
Mr Wendt I have lost faith in Ipswich council I did not vote for our divisional member as no one stood against him Id rather the council dissolved and we re-elect people who we can fully trust who are concerned about their local people not feathering their own nest sorry council you have lost my vote
This council seems to have in their employ some of the best spin doctors available.
Pisasale did it Antoniolli did it and now Wendt is doing it.
In
his post on the councils PR page, Mr Wendt discusses the fact that the
council is facing the possibility of “expulsion” (It’s actually facing
“dismissal”… but clearly the spin doctors feel “expulsion” is a better
word to use).
He attempts to defend this by a cursory mention of
the issues relating to the charges being laid against certain
Councillors and officials.
He points out quite correctly that NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE PROVEN (my emphasis).
The thing is Mr Wendt, the ICC is not facing dismissal due to the charges that have been laid.
I
believe the Minister clearly said his reasons for asking them to show
cause was because he believes the people of Ipswich have lost confidence
in the elected members of the Council.
SPIN
Mr Wendt also goes on about the rights of the people who elected this council recently.
What about our right to be heard about the Swanbank stench for 20 years Wayne?
20 years it has continued for and still is ongoing today!
Do
you think its unreasonable that finally the people have lost confidence
in the council because NOTHING has been done about it?
MORE SPIN
What about our right to be heard about the lies and underhanded dealings about the dumps for over 10 years?
Do
you think its unreasonable that finally we have we have lost confidence
that this issue being dealt with in a fair and open way?
What
about our right to be heard about how the council is not following the
law Re: consultation in regard to changing the Waste Management
Strategic Plan?
Consultation?
We were not even told about it, till
after the fact… and Council is employing obscuration tactics in
response to questions that are being asked about when the dumping to
land fill actually commenced!.
MORE SPIN.
The Council is required by law to formulate and adopt A Waste Management Strategic Plan.
It
is supposed to be updated when there is a change to the plan (as in
changing the direction of the waste stream) and regardless, it is
required to be updated every 5 years.
Ipswich City Councils plan is 3 years overdue for the update.
Once again, this council (this time you are the figure head) is trying to spin an argument that is not based on the facts.
MORE SPIN
Yes
its a shame that long standing and new councillors are facing losing
their jobs that they were elected to do (in some cases quite recently),
or in many cases RE elected.
My view is, I don’t care how long or
short the time is that you are in a job… if you are doing a bad job…
then you face the sack… that’s the reality in the real world Wayne.
You talk about people having a chance to have their say.
It will be interesting to see if that extends to my right of reply.
3.5
4
It is a bit rich to criticise the State Government for stepping in on this issue. I acknowledge your comments about democratic processes and rights, however it has come to a situation where trust in elected and appointed officials of the Council has been massively undermined by the allegations and rumours. Without that trust, Council officials have little legitimacy. and there is a need for a new start.
Further, is is simply not true to say that a caretaker administration, of whatever form, is denying constituents the ability to ” to make a complaint, offer a pat on the back, or suggest ways their community can be more beautiful, safer, or inherently functional.” That will all remain possible under a caretaker administration and perhaps will be even more effective, given the mistrust that currently exists.
“But to take a fundamental right – the
right to have a say – from the hands of the people is not the way to
serve perceived justice.”
So why then was my comment not published here?