Concern with jury model
I write in response to the Advertiser article of May 11 titled “Jury out on council spending”.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
I am a firm believer in measures to give residents a greater say in how their money is spent. I support the notion of citizens’ juries, though I have concern with the model the City of Greater Bendigo is implementing, and the question our council is asking the jury to consider: “What should council spend our money on to shape the community’s future?” Whilst the jury will be randomly selected, chances are the less confident and articulate will not nominate for jury positions. So the jury is unlikely to be truly representative of our community.
I am searching for ideas on how to involve the majority of down-to-earth citizens to speak up and have their say under the jury system. The question council posed for the jury was clearly not thought up by the citizens of Greater Bendigo.
To have a truly democratic process shouldn’t we be consulted on what aspects of council should be up for judgement? By selecting the topic council can control direction of the debate. A more fundamental and pressing question in my mind for a jury would be: How big or small do we want our council to be?
This is directly related to the range of services residents want and are prepared to pay for, or forego or reduce. This requires prioritising the range of services; not just responding to special interest groups. It raises the issue of what other efficiences can be made in running the city. I imagine readers can think of numerous other critical questions for debate. Given the citizens jury proposal was officer initiated I guess it was never designed to question core aspects of council processes and more likely to be seen as a mechanism for validating existing council procedures and costs.
Still and all I wish the selected jurors all the best in their deliberations, look forward to positive outcomes on a cost/benefit basis and salute them for their time commitment to our great city.
Michael McKenzie, Bendigo
Addressing road safety
I write to address recent commentary that the Towards Zero Action Plan 2016-2020 means drastic speed limit changes on country roads.
A key part of the strategy is fixing high speed rural roads, where 44 per cent of deaths and 20 per cent of serious injuries happen. We cannot accept this as our price for getting around. As humans, we do make mistakes from time to time – the Towards Zero approach will create an environment where drivers and riders’ mistakes aren’t fatal. On country roads, this means looking at innovative, comprehensive solutions to build the safest roads possible. It also means driving the safest cars we can afford and taking on our shared responsibility to be safe road users. Contrary to what some have said in recent days, sweeping speed limit changes are not planned. Infrastructure changes are the priority, and speed limit changes would only be considered where there is a strong evidence base to support doing so, including crash histories and other local factors. The Goulburn Valley Highway is a case in point where the speed limit was reduced from 100km/h to 80km/h, following a tragic loss of five lives in five months. Once centerline barriers have been installed and other improvements made, the limit will return to 100km/h.
Joe Calafiore, Transport Accident Commission
- Letters commenting on election issues must bear the name and full address of the writer(s). Responsibility for election comment in this issue is accepted by Bendigo Advertiser editor Nicole Ferrie, 67-71 Williamson Street, Bendigo. Writers should disclose any alliance with political or community organisations and include their telephone number for verification. Election candidates should declare themselves as such when submitting letters.