IT IS understandable for Hobart- based politicians Andrew Wilkie and Cassy O'Connor to criticise the new health headquarters being based in Launceston, but that's parochialism.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Of course they must be seen in the South to be defending their patch.
The facts are Tasmania is a tiny island with 514,000 people, and no bigger than some municipalities interstate. It is absurd to have three health kingdoms in a state where 200kilometres separates the two major cities. It is why the previous government rolled the three regional water authorities back into one.
For the same reasons it is ludicrous for Tasmania to boast 29 municipalities. This is a waste of scarce ratepayer and taxpayer dollars. To think that the state some years ago had 46 municipalities for a proportionately similar size population is a joke. There should be no more than 12 to 15.
It is no wonder that Tasmania is derided by other states. Why should they prop up a chronic mendicant state, forever living comfortably on their generosity?
Secondly, it is absurd to presume that a leaner bureaucracy means it is better to be based in Hobart.
The previous government was too Hobart-centric. For the same reason that Canberra should be dismantled as a bureaucratic monolith, at least to some extent, so should Hobart be relieved of a presumption that the south is Rome, where all roads must lead to. Despite the superior size and technical expertise of the Royal Hobart Hospital, the provinces, north of Oatlands, absorb almost half the funds set aside for hospital services.
Making savings through modern technology doesn't automatically identify Hobart as the logical centre.
Hobart will always be Tasmania's capital, but the natural centre for commerce and statewide delivery of public services, in a geographical sense, is actually Launceston.
Good on Ms O'Connor and Mr Wilkie for spruiking their region, but their entire premise is both elitist and wrong.
