Should Australia Day date be changed?

[Booney]

Hahaha nah, you don't have to read it, but more people need to understand how the spheres of government work and what their roles are.

Local Government do not make policy - and never should. Minor By Laws the exception.

Neither does he.

[morell]

No, no one does, but IMO people should know that it's there, who is responsible for it and that its contents govern what Local Government can and can't do.

A lot of the heat Local Government get is so profoundly unjustified simply because people don't understand that simple concept.

[Magellan]

Hahaha nah, you don't have to read it, but more people need to understand how the spheres of government work and what their roles are.

Local Government do not make policy - and never should. Minor By Laws the exception.

I think the decision to celebrate Australia Day on another day is not really a 'policy' decision in the true sense of the word. Everyone can still not go to work, get pissed at a BBQ and listed to JJJ et al on 26 January. All the council is debating is whether to hold an event for Australia Day on a different day.

I'd also bet the funding for Australia Day celebrations comes out of the council's coffers and not via federal funds, so surely it's up to a self-governing body to determine how it can spend its money?

[morell]

Hahaha nah, you don't have to read it, but more people need to understand how the spheres of government work and what their roles are.

Local Government do not make policy - and never should. Minor By Laws the exception.

I think the decision to celebrate Australia Day on another day is not really a 'policy' decision in the true sense of the word. Everyone can still not go to work, get pissed at a BBQ and listed to JJJ et al on 26 January. All the council is debating is whether to hold an event for Australia Day on a different day.

No it is. There is a reasonably strict protocol and the like as the Citizenship ceremonies are formal.

I'd also bet the funding for Australia Day celebrations comes out of the council's coffers and not via federal funds, so surely it's up to a self-governing body to determine how it can spend its money?

No, certain services LG is specifically, by law, mandated to deliver as per the Act. This is why Council's are able to collect rates, also, by law.

It might seem nerdy but if a Council doesn't meet their obligations, the executive can be charged with malfeasance and even face jail time.

[Magellan]

No, certain services LG is specifically, by law, mandated to deliver as per the Act. This is why Council's are able to collect rates, also, by law.

What are those services, and where does the Act mandate them?

[morell]

No, certain services LG is specifically, by law, mandated to deliver as per the Act. This is why Council's are able to collect rates, also, by law.

What are those services, and where does the Act mandate them?

Carn man its thousands of pages! And probably hundreds of services.

I'll give you one that I have to work with every day:

According to the Local Government Act 1999, 2011.33.UN Part 2 Section 5 I must provide :

(1) A long-term financial plan developed and adopted for the purposes of
section 122(1a)(a) of the Act must include—
(b) a summary of proposed operating and capital investment activities presented
in a manner consistent with the note in the Model Financial Statements
entitled Uniform Presentation of Finances; and
(c) estimates and target ranges adopted by the council for each year of the
long-term financial plan with respect to an operating surplus ratio, a net
financial liabilities ratio and an asset sustainability ratio presented in a
manner consistent with the note in the Model Financial Statements entitled
Financial Indicators.

In laypersons terms - we have to prove what we're spending our money on is able to be sustained and that it is budgeted for.

We get audited every year, to ensure this occurs. If I get a qualified audit, I am in all sorts of strife. Of course there are controls in place and management and technical support to ensure this never happens, but the rules are clear.

[Magellan]

No, certain services LG is specifically, by law, mandated to deliver as per the Act. This is why Council's are able to collect rates, also, by law.

What are those services, and where does the Act mandate them?

Carn man its thousands of pages! And probably hundreds of services.

I'll give you one that I have to work with every day:

According to the Local Government Act 1999, 2011.33.UN Part 2 Section 5 I must provide :

(1) A long-term financial plan developed and adopted for the purposes of
section 122(1a)(a) of the Act must include—
(b) a summary of proposed operating and capital investment activities presented
in a manner consistent with the note in the Model Financial Statements
entitled Uniform Presentation of Finances; and
(c) estimates and target ranges adopted by the council for each year of the
long-term financial plan with respect to an operating surplus ratio, a net
financial liabilities ratio and an asset sustainability ratio presented in a
manner consistent with the note in the Model Financial Statements entitled
Financial Indicators.

In laypersons terms - we have to prove what we're spending our money on is able to be sustained and that it is budgeted for.

We get audited every year, to ensure this occurs. If I get a qualified audit, I am in all sorts of strife. Of course there are controls in place and management and technical support to ensure this never happens, but the rules are clear.

Well, I take the view the LG Act does not mandate any services per se (as in ‘the council must provide x or else’). The Act leaves that open to the council to resolve what it can provide based on its financial capabilities and the parameters set down by sections 6 to 8 which outline the council’s duties and functions. These are quite broad and written in a way that allows for the council to exercise its discretion based on the realities and pressures of public governance. There are certainly suggestions as to how it can provide services (e.g waste removal), but they are not expressed in a way that forces council to comply.

Your quote refers to the provision of strategic management plans, the 10 year plans and management of infrastructure and assets. There is a difference between justifying the expenditure of public money for the sake of accountability and transparency and the political decision by the council body makes in determining how its spends public money.

Good to see you did some homework, though.

[The Bedge]

Magellan 1
Morell 0

[morell]

Well, I take the view the LG Act does not mandate any services per se (as in ‘the council must provide x or else’). The Act leaves that open to the council to resolve what it can provide based on its financial capabilities and the parameters set down by sections 6 to 8 which outline the council’s duties and functions. These are quite broad and written in a way that allows for the council to exercise its discretion based on the realities and pressures of public governance.

There are certainly suggestions as to how it can provide services (e.g waste removal), but they are not expressed in a way that forces council to comply.

Well sure, but Council don't get to rewrite the Act and/or determine it's contents - which is my point - Local Government cannot dictate federal policy and has to act under the, perhaps broad in your view, legislation provided by the Act. It can provide consultation and be a significant stakeholder, but it can't make policy decisions at that level.

Which, way back when, was the point I was trying to make that Local Government shouldn't be dictating or making their own decisions on Federal policy.

So whilst from a theoretical and legal perspective you could argue Council can spend money how it likes, that's a bit like arguing because there is leeway in a speed camera measurement you can go whatever speed you like in a 60 zone. Simply because the rules are flexible or have wriggle room doesn't mean the rules aren't there or that the rules don't exist. Or that at a practical level they're not followed.

Your quote refers to the provision of strategic management plans, the 10 year plans and management of infrastructure and assets. There is a difference between justifying the expenditure of public money for the sake of accountability and transparency and the political decision by the council body makes in determining how its spends public money.

Good to see you did some homework, though.

To be able to justify how we spend our money would probably mean abiding by the legislation.

Your argument is a bit like saying "you can choose to Murder someone, you will get thrown in jail and its against the law, but you can still *choose* to do it".

We're talking about theoretical examples and analogies and hypotheticals. Facts are - Local Government is restricted with what it can and cant do, based on reasonable tried and proven legislation. Nowhere in that legislation does it include any proviso to be changing or making decisions on federal policy. Which is what the citizenship ceremonies are.

And it 'aint homework, its my job

[morell]

Magellan 1
Morell 0

lol pls

Magellan to his credit has provided his interpretation. As have I. So it's impossible to "score" this one, sorry.

[bennymacca]

So Morell works for a council?

That makes a lot of sense

[morell]

So Morell works for a council?

That makes a lot of sense

Worked for a municipal services contractor, a Council, an Engineering consultancy now now a Council again.

[mickey]

So Morell works for a council?

That makes a lot of sense

What's wrong with council workers!

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[amber_fluid]

So Morell works for a council?

That makes a lot of sense

Worked for a municipal services contractor, a Council, an Engineering consultancy now now a Council again.

Probably time to get a real job now and grow up

[heater31]

So Morell works for a council?

That makes a lot of sense

What's wrong with council workers!

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

You stick to the sheds where you belong