Hard Questions for Mayor van Zetten and GM Michael Stretton

 

TO READ THE SUBMISSION GO TO

http://lcc63.blogspot.com/2020/09/representation-to-city-of-launceston-in.html

TIME FOR RERAL CHANGE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ... NO alderman or councillor will vote themselves out of their job,

Talking Point: Concept of voluntary council mergers is laughable Voluntary amalgamation is never going to happen to better manage Tasmania’s 29 councils, because no alderman or councillor will vote themselves out of their job, writes former mayor GRAHAM BURY. | September 15, 2020 9:45am 

 EVEN for those with little more than a passing interest in local government, it must seem strange that the most recent reform (code for amalgamations) was 27 years ago. ............................ Unless state government, which has complete authority over local government, changes its meaningless policy on council amalgamations and shows some political will by taking charge of any reform process, there will be many more years before much needed reforms occur. ............................ Among the barriers to reform is the state government policy on amalgamations. Minister Mark Shelton said, “the government’s position remains that local government reforms, such as amalgamations have the best chance of succeeding when they are voluntary” (Mercury, July 17). ............................ I searched far and wide without finding evidence to support this. It comes so soon after failed attempts involving Clarence, Sorell and Tasman councils. ............................ The only recent amalgamation in Australia is when state government has taken charge. It is surely no surprise that when it comes to a final vote councillors and aldermen do not like voting themselves out of a job. ............................ Governments do not have policies of voluntary taxation or voluntary speed limits. It is laughable to contemplate that such policies or that of voluntary amalgamations might work. ............................ I am no fan of forced amalgamations in the manner of the Kennett government in Victoria in 1993, but “voluntary amalgamations” do not occur. ............................ Another factor that should accelerate the urge for reform is financial sustainability of councils, in particular smaller ones. A report from Access Economics for the Tasmanian Local Government Association in 2007 indicated “one in five councils may be unsustainable” and in 2009 the Auditor-General found ‘two thirds of Tasmanian councils were economically unsustainable’. ............................

FORMER MAYOR: Graham Bury ............................ Financial Assistance Grants for local government were introduced by the Whitlam government in 1974, with a roads component added in 1991. ............................ The local government grants bill 1974 says, “The Government’s aim is that the Grants Commission (through whom the funds pass), should play the same role in reducing local governing authorities inequalities … the grants are designed to reduce inequalities in the provision of ordinary services. ............................ However these funds should in no way be a substitute for revenues raised by councils by long established methods such as rates and charges for services”. ............................ Each council receives roughly $1 to $4 million a year. ............................ These grants, which are untied, have a disproportionate influence on smaller councils and seem to prop up their balance sheets. Welcome as these grants are, they have a perverse and unintended influence on the search for economies of scale. ............................ They disguise the need for reform and support the fiction that smaller councils are sustainable. ............................ Annual reports of 2018-2019 shows that for two larger councils, Hobart and Launceston, financial assistance grants make up 2 to 3 per cent of income, with Clarence at 4 per cent. But for some of the smaller councils such as Tasman, they make up 11 per cent of income — rising to 25 per cent if state grants are included, with Huon Valley at 13 per cent. ............................ It is no surprise the Auditor- General has been concerned about their financial viability. ............................ With exception of specific infrastructure projects, we should surely be expecting councils to raise a substantial part of their income from rates and charges, as now occurs only with the larger councils. ............................

Minister Mark Shelton. Picture: ZAK SIMMONDS Well, do amalgamations save money? Yes, but not as much as predicted. Some activities are labour intensive. It is not always possible to reduce staff in areas such as planning and environmental services. ............................ A study by KPMG in 2016 showed in one option that a merger of Clarence, Sorell, Glamorgan Spring Bay and Tasman, “had the potential to yield savings of around $7.6m per year. With all the other options having merit and preferable to doing nothing”. Despite the best intentioned attempts at voluntary amalgamations, these predicted savings could not be tested. The least favoured option of doing nothing was the one to survive. ............................ So where do we go from here? ............................ Probably the first lesson comes from the attempted reforms in 1999. This provides one of the better models for how not to accomplish amalgamations. ............................ However, there is general agreement reforms leading to a reduction from 46 to 29 councils in 1993 was a successful process. ............................ A local government advisory board was established by the state government in 1991 and given two years to complete an “inquiry in to the modernisation of local government” and report to the minister. The advisory board consulted with all municipalities, elected members, staff and communities. State government at the time demonstrated a commitment to local government and the reform process, while making it clear amalgamations were expected. They facilitated vital local ownership and assisted acceptance and success of the reform process. They provided transition funds and established equal state and local government transition committees representing each council. ............................ So there is a way forward for reform of local government and it does not appear too difficult. Is state government going to continue to sit on its hands, protected by a policy on amalgamations that is in the realms of fantasy? And blame the failure of any attempts at amalgamation by councils on the councils themselves ............................ For goodness sake, please show some leadership. ............................ Dr Graham Bury is a retired paediatrician, Kingborough mayor from 2005 to 2014 and a patron of Education Ambassadors Tasmania.

COMMENT: Rather than amalgamation we need to be talking about eradication and replacing elected councils filled with people ill equipped for 21st C policy development and planning. Commissions filled with appointed 'experts' held accountable by Citizens Assemblies etc. is what is required. Fewer high flown bureaucrats more expert managers, planners and social scientists.

It is the 21^st C and there are multiple mechanisms for the citizenry to be directly engaged in governance and collectively citizens working together couldn’t do a worse job than Tasmania’s relatively unrepresentative local governments.

Cr Danny Gibson on Cultural Accountability??

Whilst Cr Gibson was acting mayor this is how he answered a question from ratepayers without notice in regard to the QVMAG:

Q ... Collectively, the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery's stakeholder, ratepayers and donors have accumulated collection assets in the order of $240 million, have underwritten in the recurrent budget, something in the order of $60 million plus, over the last decade; have funded significant capital expenditure that Council argues is confidential as an operation matter; has largely excluded ratepayers from taking any part in or being permitted to offer comment, criticism or critique, relative to such operational matters; and that pre-COVID-19, stakeholders and ratepayers have been underwriting the QVMAG's costs in excess of $50 per visitor per annum. Then, over time, on our assessment, Council has failed or has been unable to provide expert institutional governance and it is very concerning to ratepayers that Council has allowed for the blending of the functions of governance and management. This has reduced the QVMAG's capacity to operate purposefully and deliver on performance indicators determined collectively by governance and funding agencies, and in turn, seriously reduced its funding opportunities. Furthermore, this diminishes and devalues the trust the ratepayers and supporters have invested in the QVMAG and security of its collections and is against the interests of stakeholders in Tasmania nationally and internationally. Council has been unsuccessful in shaming our State Government into trebling the funding it currently provides. Consequent to all this will Council now consider abdicating its governance role in favour of an expert Commissioner and Board of Governors, formally charged with proactively reviewing and renewing the QVMAG Charter and a purposeful Strategic Plan; transition the QVMAG into a stand alone Regional Community Cultural Trust say, within a decade; establishing working entrepreneurial alliances with like institutions in Tasmania, nationally and internationally and consider doing this in the current financial year?


A ...The Deputy Mayor, Councillor D C Gibson, responded by saying that the Council is in the process of completing a review of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery which will address the matters raised in your question. It is intended that the details of the review will be publicly released later this year.


NB: Launceston's ratepayers funds the recurrent costs of the QVMAG to the extent of almost $5Million. By comparison the State Govt's TOTAL Arts Grants & Loans for all artforms is in the order of $3.5Million. Ratepayers have been excluded from the 'Cultural Strategy Process', the consultation process. 

Also, Cr. Gibson appears to be appointing himself as Launceston's Champion of Culture but so far he has been 'championing' the status quo and council's 'behind closed doors policy deliberations'.

Curiously, he is asking the questions recorded in this weeks council agenda question that by now he should already know the answers IF he has been paying attention and seriously going about his business as Launceston's 'King of Culture'.

Will he leave it at that OR will step up to the plate?

We might also ask does he actually know what questions need to be asked next?

City of Launceston.   COUNCIL AGENDA.    97
Thursday 17 September 2020

12.1.1 Councillors' Question on Notice - Councillor D C Gibson - Cultural Strategy and Child Friendly City - 7 September 2020 FILE NO: SF2375 AUTHOR: Anthea Rooney (Council and Committees Officer) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Michael Stretton

QUESTIONS and RESPONSES:

The following questions, submitted in writing on 7 September 2020 by Councillor D C Gibson, have been answered by Mrs Leanne Hurst (General Manager Community and Place Network) and Ms Tracy Puklowski (General Manager Creative Arts and Cultural Services Network).

Questions:
1. Following the conclusion of the consultation period for the Cultural Strategy, what are the steps/processes and milestone dates that will be undertaken now and who will be implementing the additional changes into the document (ie. will this be undertaken internally by staff or using a consultant)?

Response:

To ensure continuity, consultant Colin James is working closely with the City of Launceston team to integrate any changes arising from community feedback into the final Cultural Strategy document. It is envisaged that a final document will be presented to Council for endorsement in November. The timing of a public launch will then be confirmed, depending on COVID-19 restrictions. [CLEARLY NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE DRAFT ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED BY 'MANAGEMENT' AND YET AGAIN THE ROLES AND FUNCTIONS OF COUNCILLORS (GOVERNORS DEFAULT TRUSTEES) AND MANAGEMENT ARE BLURRED AND DELIBERATED UPON IN CAMERA]

Post adoption, the Creative Arts and Cultural Services and Place Making teams will work together on developing a draft Implementation Framework. At the same time, Governance models to support the implementation of the Strategy will be explored based on best practice, capacity to manage, the Council's governance structures, and representativeness of the wider cultural sector. [BEST PRACTICE IN AUSTRALIA AT LEAST SEPARATES THE ROLES OF GOVERNANCE & MANAGEMENT AND LIKEWISE GOVERNANCE, EXPERT GOVERNANCE, FUNDS CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS/ORGANISATIONS IT DOES NOT OPERATE THEM ... CLEARLY MANAGEMENT IS WORKING TOWARDS THE CONTINUATION OF THE STATUS QUO WHERE THE TWO DISTINCT FUNCTIONS REMAIN 'AMALGAMATED']

THIS PROCESS FAILS THE CREDIBILITY TEST AND IT GIVES ALMOST NO OPPORTUNITY TO THE COMMUNITY IN ITS DIVERSITY TO CHALLENGE THE ASSERTIONS, FLAWS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS  EMBEDDED IN THE DRAFT. THUS  ITS CREDIBILITY IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE.

2. [With regards to the process of achieving a Child Friendly City status] How is this important work tracking and how are we going in our efforts to achieve this?

Response:

Following Council's decision in May 2013, to give in-principle support to Launceston pursuing Child Friendly City status as recognised by UNICEF, the Council in partnership with Anglicare's Communities for Children (CFC) initiative and the Northern Tasmanian Early Years Group formed the Child Friendly Working Group. City of Launceston

COUNCIL AGENDA.  98.    Thursday 17 September 2020

12.1.1 Councillors' Question on Notice - Councillor D C Gibson - Cultural Strategy and Child Friendly City - 7 September 2020 …(Cont’d)

One part of developing a strategic pathway for Launceston to become a child friendly city was to identify what data was being collected on the health and wellbeing of children aged 0-18 in the Launceston area. In addition to collating data from State and Federal Government reports, including data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, two forums were held in September and December 2013 with service providers and community groups. Data was gathered in five key areas with indicators relating to:

 Children developing well;  Children being safe and secure;  Children learning and engaged;  The health of children; and  Children participating in their communities.

In many ways it indicated that Launceston is a wonderful place to bring up a family, however, there are some children who are considered vulnerable or at risk.

As a result, "The State of Launceston Children's Report" was produced by Anglicare's CFC initiative and was released in July 2014 as a first step towards Launceston becoming a Child Friendly City. It was envisaged as a tool to assist in informing the community’s decision-making about how together we can work on addressing the health and well-being issues of Launceston's children.

There followed a period of community engagement, including "The State of Launceston Children Summit", coordinated by Anglicare in August 2014. The summit participants identified areas of priority from the Report findings to focus on moving forward. A number of conversations were held with the community and providers through to the end of 2014. At this time Anglicare, as facilitating partner for the Launceston and East Tamar Communities for Children site, was exploring a collective impact approach and also reviewing its governance model.

In 2015, the then Communities for Children Council (on which City of Launceston officers were represented), was dissolved and a new governance structure was put in place, with a new Council with changed membership and focussed on funding priorities, as well as local committees identifying local area needs using a collective impact approach. This effectively also dissolved the Child Friendly City working group. The "Every Child Succeeds" initiative was launched by CFC at the same time as a collective impact approach to attaining better outcomes for Launceston and the Tamar Valley's children. It appears to be around this time that the focus of efforts shifted away from directly seeking UNICEF Child Friendly City status for Launceston. City of Launceston

COUNCIL AGENDA 99 Thursday 17 September 2020

12.1.1 Councillors' Question on Notice - Councillor D C Gibson - Cultural Strategy and Child Friendly City - 7 September 2020 …(Cont’d)

In conclusion, while Council did give its in-principle support to support to Launceston

pursuing Child Friendly City status in 2013 and has engaged with the community in the

manner outlined above, the action has not been included in the Council’s annual work

plans for many years and accordingly, it has not been resourced as a priority action. It is

suggested that if the Council still believes that this is an important initiative to pursue, then

it needs to be workshopped and re-prioritised in future.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Councillor's Questions on Notice - Councillor D C Gibson - 7 September 2020