
To most of us, it is the potential for a conflict of interest to influence decisions that is the most important matter that requires attention.
To rely on the outcome requires that the outcome and that the person with the conflict of interest was involved in achieving it actually be known - not always easy in these days of increasing government secrecy.
More importantly, in a practical sense, is that the outcomes might well not be reversible. In the Nalder case, the Tier 3 rail lines come to mind - once these lines are closed and allowed to deteriorate it is most unlikely that they would ever be re-opened.
In the case of local government so-called reform, if ignoring the conflict of interest of some members of the Local Government Advisory Board results in amalgamations across the metropolitan area (not to mention, subsequently, country WA), the massive expenditure to implement the change makes it unlikely that there would be appetite for the additional cost and disruption of de-amalgamation - although some Queensland communities have shown that it can be done.
No comments:
Post a Comment