Self-reflection isn’t a common attribute for politicians, especially the corporatised ‘in the tent’ types.
They are pretty easy to spot, and inhabit councils, state and federal governments.
With ambition over substance, they don’t offer much vision, and rely on their charm to win over enough of the public so they can enter the hallowed ‘tent’ of governance.
Instead of challenging and bending the bureaucracy to work for those who elected them, ‘in the tent’ politicians see their job as being a willing cog in the machine. It’s a means to an end, so they can climb the political ladder.
As a result, we all suffer, because invariably no meaningful reform occurs, and the govcorp machine grinds onwards, with the interests of the governing and wealthy class trumping everyone elses.
While these political actor types seem to always disappoint, the media should also dig deep and look to where it can improve.
It’s a serious job being the interface between the public and the governing/wealthy class.
So – as editor, I regret running the page three story and photo in last week’s edition of Cr Asren Pugh.
It was born of frustration.
As a Mullum local, I am witnessing the trashing of the town I grew up in by this Council majority.
The hypocrisy question put to Cr Pugh is still valid, however, and remains unanswered.
The context is that he was the mover of two motions around developments at the June 22 Byron Council meeting.
One motion called for community inclusion in decision making by the Northern Rivers Reconstruction Corporation (NRRC) with their ‘lands strategy’ (see page 5), while his other motion, on Council turning a busy Mullum car park into housing, did the opposite, as it was held behind closed doors.
In his letter on page 20, Cr Pugh attempts to deflect from the question, claiming all councillors voted for confidentiality in the second motion.
That’s just saying: ‘Hey, we are all as bad as each other!’
It’s irrelevant who voted for confidentiality – his name is on both motions.
Remarkably, he now says he is happy to discuss the issue publicly, while also having a sneer at Cr Duncan Dey’s ‘transparency’.
It’s terrific that Cr Pugh has a newfound sense of purpose, because transparency and honesty with the public has been lacking with other projects prior to this.
They include the pod villages, the rollout of the NRRC land strategy, and Council’s ‘affordable housing’ project, slated for the Mullum railway corridor.
Echo requests for information on the latest car park plans, with redacted tender amounts, were refused by GM Mark Arnold and Mayor Michael Lyon.
The only public information on this matter (which is selling public land to a developer) is being drip fed by the mayor, at his pleasure.
Unlike Council, The Echo is doing its best to inform the public of these developments, unfiltered from govcorp spin and secrecy.
Hans Lovejoy, editor
And that’s why we love The Echo! Best independent media in Australia! Thank you for keeping us informed with real news.
Not!
Keep it up, Echo!! We’re so grateful for your work. It’s not just politicians either, in the tent, it’s service agencies etc as well. All in their inwards facing siloes with patronising attitudes to community… what’s left of it…
Mullum, they trashed the Bay, now they’ll trash you.
Secret development deals on public amenity suggests an ombudsman investigation.
Thank you Hans. Many folks join the collective scream. Never stop being Democratic The Echo team.. Appreciated muchly.
Yep greens at it again, editorial want more housing but not near them.
Well spotted.
I’m a bit confused Hans. Was this “editorial” a reply or your own bit of diversion, attempting to elevate the reflections of the editor of a family owned local newspaper to overly grandiose and generalised philosophising on the universal condition of the body politic? A local editor taken to task on coverage of a very routine local government issue
Was it a statement of regret or another opportunity for a full blown swipe at Cr Pugh? You certainly didn’t hold back: not prone to self-reflection, a “ corporatised ‘in the tent’ type(s)” with “ … ambition over substance … (not) much vision, and rely(ing) on (their) charm … so they (he) can enter the hallowed ‘tent’ of governance “ etc etc. Please Hans, if you ever feel like “regretting” anything you publish about me, do me a favour and don’t bother making amends.
Or is it to tell us pretentiously, how you suffer for your art “being the interface between the public and the governing/wealthy class”? Such that you need to scream into pillows?
Let’s get real: Cr Pugh moved to call for community inclusion in decision making by the Northern Rivers Reconstruction Corporation (NRRC) with their ‘lands strategy’. Good, no?
He explains that he “called” the car park agenda item, ensuring that it was actually discussed – as opposed to being swept through with all the other “uncalled” items – and this is an example of opacity?
If you want to make a case for the decision being made in camera, then make it – most appropriately against the Council as a whole, not just the Councillor who eventually moved something but NOT the confidentiality motion.
I didn’t read his comments as “a sneer at Cr Duncan Dey’s ‘transparency’” but I’d suggest it pointed to YOUR hypocrisy in your inconsistent attitude to different players depending on their party endorsement. Anyway do you really have the temerity here to talk about “sneering”?
Perhaps if you think Council is trashing Mullumbimby then write a serious opinion piece about how to balance the need to provide more housing, against the desire of just about the whole shire to keep things just as they are. Take up a real position and defend it rather than one throwing barbs at whatever decision is made about wherever the balance is drawn.
Lizardbreath, it would be great if you used your real name, because it’s unlikely you were given that name by your parents.
I have no problem with public accountability, so why do you?
I am fully aware of the need to provide an alternative to the type of shitty ‘development’ this council believes is acceptable. There just simply isn’t a lot of options for new dwellings in the shire, yet small hamlets in flood free areas seems to be ignored as an option. Instead, Council’s agenda is higher density in towns that can’t cope with existing traffic.
And downplaying this as “very routine local government issue” is just in itself a diversion. Either you want the public to come along with Council’s development plans, or you don’t.
Being an apologist on their behalf is just weird – Are you on their payroll?
All I am saying is that councillors should understand their role, and respect those who elected them. Pretty simple, but seemingly a big ask.
Hans
The editor suggests that his great concern is “Council’s agenda (for) higher density in towns that can’t cope with existing traffic”. I’m sure he is genuinely concerned about this – so am I. Strange though that this is mentioned so little in either this editorial or the original report so focussed on Cr Pugh. Both offerings were a singular and targeted attack on ONE councillor, a councillor who didn’t even move for the confidentiality of deliberations that he WAS quite focussed on. It wasn’t very subtle.
If this confidentiality vote was in fact unanimous then indeed it would seem appropriate that all councillors were interrogated in the same way and all had their photos published with the same Echo commitment to publish their replies. Could it possibly be that the councillor involved is the only Labor endorsed councillor and it suits a particular agenda du jour of the Echo?
The question of small hamlets in flood free areas is an interesting one. I don’t recall ever reading this mentioned on these pages before but I’d welcome a well researched and explicated case for these made. Now that would be an editorial or op ed of substance and positivity.
I have already explained why I asked Pugh and not the others: He moved both the motions. I have no agenda for or against Labor, and if you have actually been paying attention over the years, you would have read my criticisms of all parties. The Greens are a mess, but they do not have any power. I am focused on those who do. I prefer to engage with people who have the courage to say who they are, so I am now done here.
If people live in a higher density Town, they can walk or cycle to their destination rather than drive from small hamlets.
Think of our planet and tell me that this is shitty ‘development’.
Having said that, one cannot respond to the rest of your reply because you again descend into name-calling, insults and asking a stupid question of the original writer as to his employment,
One could almost say that you’re one-eyed towards the Greens, especially Cr Dey and anti The Mayor and Cr Pugh.
However, that would reduce me to your level, so I won’t suggest it .
It does suggest that you cannot handle well written, thoughtful , contradictory responses to your editorials without getting “frustrated”.
Thanks Jimie, I did indeed find it unfortunate that personal attack was again part of the MO. I’m sure many councillors and staff would get a good chuckle at the suggestion that I’m “on the payroll” or even an apologist.