THE LAUNCESTONIAN CONSULTATION FURPHY

ROAD CHANGES 

LACK of consultation corrodes confidence in governments and organisations. ........................ In terms of a local issue, surrounding residents should be contacted on a direct mail basis. ........................ Costly, but cheaper than the $400,000 proposed for the Launceston City Council, Westbury Road changes. ........................ "Your Voice, Your Launceston" is a good consultation tool provided by council for broad matters. ........................ But in practicality working families don't have time to complete a survey every month. ........................ If contacted directly about an issue within their local area, I feel people would be more likely to share their thoughts rather than the more obscure offerings of the Your Voice, Your Launceston website. ........................ Furthermore it was surprising to hear that both Prospect High School and St Patrick's College were not contacted either. ........................Any Launceston resident would understand the congestion during school peak times. ........................ We all know this isn't the first time. Remember the Wellington Street tree planting? Just to mention one. ........................ Launceston - Let's ensure our local government and Aldermen are more consultative and accountable to us. ........................ Too often the first time residents hear of proposals or issues is via an Examiner article. ........................ On bigger but local issues such as the Westbury Road, changes by local government must be direct to residents. That is how we can restore confidence in local government again. 

A. Carter, Mowbray 

EDITOR'S NOTE: The issue of consultation at Launceston Council is increasingly concerning. Management serially invokes SECTIONS 65 and 62 of the Local Govt. Act 1993 as the 'authority', and the mechanisms for, circumventing meaningful consultation processes. 

The 'Social Media Mechanism' for community consultation turns out as being slanted towards in-house management imperatives as is demonstrated by the implementation of plans for Westbury Road where clearly whatever passed for 'community consultation' has failed to take account of legitimate community concerns.

This compounds the impact upon Quadrant Mall traders are suffering as a consequence of the City Heart development. Here traders had their 'stake' in the development recognised after plans had been implemented, contracts let, etc. Sadly, in this instance traders are facing significant losses with some early on in 'the development' have been reportedly in the order of 40% to 60% early on in a months long project.

To compound problems in this development Council management has determined not only just who the stakeholders are but how many of them the will consult confidentially and in-camera at meetings well away from the legitimate gaze of other 'stakeholders' – traders, shoppers, clients, residents, service providers, et al.

Curiously, Council opened an Information Office on site in a attempt to mitigate against problems already compounding upon themselves daily. One wonders where Council is going to set up an office on Westbury Road to handle the traffic problems after the $4000K of ratepayers' money has been spent.

Increasingly. what passes for adequate and appropriate consultation fails at a fundamental level with the aldermen and senior management blissfully unaware of, and apparently unconcerned about, the negative impact Council operations is having upon ratepayers.

AND THEN, there is the issue of Council's gifting of public land to UTas exposing ratepayers to consequent infrastructure expenditures and further unplanned expenditure fiscal imposts.

TAMAR RIVER

ONE HUNDRED YEARS ago the then Port of Launceston Authority wrote to the then Launceston Municipal Council asking the council to: "at the earliest possible date proceed to carry out with all expedition a scheme of sewerage works which will avoid the discharging of all sewage and other matter into the North Esk River and other portions of the Harbour,” (PLA letter March 16 1916). ........................ Ten years ago, 2005, I said “Our Tamar River is dying and alarm bells have been ringing since 1998.” (The Examiner, April 6, 2005). ........................ In 2008, the State of the Tamar Estuary report stated: “Water quality contamination by pathogens (determined by the faecal indicator bacteria streptococci and by faecal coliforms) exceeded recreational primary contact guidelines on a significant number of occasions (20-45 per cent in the middle and upper estuary). ........................ In 2015 NRM North’s Tamar Estuary Report Card, similar to previous report cards, stated that “Overall” the Tamar’s upper reaches “only meet the water quality targets 54 per cent of the time.”. ........................ In 2016 “Tamar River cruises has been forced to cancel ‘dozens’ of trips over the past week due to silt levels”. (The Examiner, March 17 2016). ........................  Even now TasWater prefers to take the easy way out selecting the cheaper option of a secondary sewage treatment plant, instead of the preferred tertiary treatment facility, which will still permit sewage to be discharged in to the Tamar, albeit at a slightly reduced rate; a system which in the long term will inevitably be found wanting. ........................ Past and present political masters of all political persuasions and at all levels of government, TasWater and its predecessors, have consistently ignored numerous warnings and failed to resolve this dilemma. ........................ Tamar degradation has been waiting for over 100 years to be properly addressed and, after waiting so long, it needs to properly attended to with the greatest urgency and with the best available solutions; not band aids. ........................We also need to seriously consider alternative options to the silt raking program (efficient dredging?). ........................While we have good rainfalls raking may be fine but in times of drought the program has shown obvious inadequacies.

Jim Collier, Legana.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The issue of Tamar pollution and the silting of the river is even older than Jim Collier indicates. Launceston has been regarding 'the river' as a open sewer since British colonisation. It is just the case that, as Jim Collier says, the Council said 'opps this is a problem' 100years ago, and along with everyone else, it has been paying little more than lip service to the issues ever since – that is except during the lead up to an election, Local Govt, State or Federal.

After the flurry and hurley burley of the election interest fades spectacularly. If anyone wants to challenge this, then the evidence can easily be found floating in the river and especially so after a rain event'. Jim Collier says it like it is and he's perhaps being a tad restrained.

What is really worrying are the reports of the disconnects between Launceston Council, The Flood Authority (a special committee of Council) and TasWater (a corporate entity collectively owned by Councils) in that Launcestonians' quality of life is being compromised 24/7/365. 

Aside from that, everything Launcestonians' value is diminished and devalued via the status quoism embraced by Council – both the representational and operational wings, successively and serially.

It seems that so long as the salaries with benefits churn continues, and that aldermanic allowances remain unthreatened, and that management plus the political class do their recreation well away from the river, meaningful change is not likely to become a priority any time soon.

Jim Collier has had his hand up offering advice from first-hand experience for a very long time and that he along with many other are serially ignored and left out of the equation demonstrates the contempt that Council holds for anyone who wish to challenge the status quo.

AND THEN, there is the Property Council advocating that Councils forgo their TasWater dividends careless of the fact that ratepayers will almost certainly be required to cover the shortfall via their rate demands. Already, the level of fiscal disconnects evident at Launceston Council is very, very, concerning. 

Ratepayers, who currently pay the highest rates in Tasmania just cannot handle, and aught not be required to, additional rate imposts.