AMALGAMATION METHODOLGIES ARE APPARENTLY IN PLACE

Click here to go this story

"The NSW government has approached at least two top bureaucrats to sound them out on the possibility of replacing NSW mayors and councillors if councils are sacked and amalgamations rammed through, according to the president of the state’s peak body for local councils. ........... President of Local Government NSW, Keith Rhoades, said he personally knew two high-level candidates who had been asked for their CVs. ........... Mr Rhoades said speculation was intensifying about the possible existence of a secret list of gun administrators lurking in the wings, should Premier Mike Baird move to dismiss some of the state’s 152 councils and force them to amalgamate. ........... “We’ve been hearing for about four or five months that they [NSW government] have got a bank of about 36 administrators ready to roll. Whether it’s true or not, who knows?” Mr Rhoades said. ........... “I happen to know a couple of the people who were approached but I’ve been told from many sources that there are mid-30’s on the list. ........... “We don’t have any idea how many [councils] will be forced to amalgamate.” ........... Government News contacted Mr Toole’s office to ask if rumours of a clandestine list of top bureaucrats were true and was told: “The Minister has committed to responding to the IPART report and council submissions. The Government will not be speculating prior to this.” ..... Click here to read on  

COMMENT: The notion that this kind of thing should be happening in Tasmania is being discussed. As time passes and as councils flounder in one way or another community debate will begin to get traction. Government's reluctance to force amalgamation is causing frustration in many quarters and its getting accolades from councillors, council bureaucrats and contractors, most of whom have vested interests in the status quo pertaining.

New Zealand's local governance model is gaining the interest of  some ratepayers albeit that Tasmania's and New Zealand's circumstances are quite different. Local government in New Zealand has only the powers conferred upon it by Parliament. Typically these powers are fewer than in some other countries. For example, many councils used to control gas and electricity supply, but nearly all of that was privatised or centralised in the 1990s.

If Tasmania's local governance system is not broken it badly cracked. Recent tinkerings around the edges has failed to impress. For instance as four year councils settle in and fail to deliver a further three years looks like eons away with the prospect of more of the same being too horrible to contemplate.

COUNCIL INVESTIGATIONS AND LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN TASMANIA

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL STORY

Tasmania's director of local government has recommended that all Glamorgan Spring Bay councillors take a training course on their role and responsibilities. .......... The recommendation was contained in a report on the council that found while it operated reasonably well, council meetings were often unproductive. .......... Director of local government Phillip Hoysted investigated the council in response to complaints and made 18 recommendations.  .......... Mr Hoysted welcomed the council's response. .......... "There's only one [point] where we have a difference of opinion and that only relates to whether the general manager and the Mayor should meet with individual councillors or with the council as a whole to discuss issues and concerns, but that's a relatively minor matter," he said. .......... "No, the council has been very positive about the way in which they've responded." .......... Mr Hoysted said he would monitor the implementation of his recommendations. "In my covering letter to the Mayor I did ask that they develop an implementation plan that measures progress and reports regularly to both the council and myself," he said.... EDITED 

What's to be said? Firstly, this is the first council report in of the three councils that are currently 'under investigation'. The other two, apparently, are currently under active investigated. 

Reports from the council areas suggest that submissions are being called for from individuals and presumably from groups as well. ………... This suggests that "Something [might be] rotten in state of Denmark" (Hamlet Act 1, scene 4, 87–91). 

As in Hamlet, its the "state of Denmark" rather than just "Denmark" because there is the symbolic implication is that the fish is rotting from the head down and that all may not be well at the top of the political hierarchy down. 

There is a good case to be put that Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act 1993 is well past its 'use-by-date' given the level of dysfunctionalism that is seemingly becoming increasingly evident across council jurisdictions. 

It has often been said that “Tasmania is over governed” which carries the innuendo that, euphemistically at least, its governance draws upon too small a ‘gene-pool’. This may or may not be the case.

The political rattling going on about the ‘A’word, amalgamation, clearly needs to be more than a rattle. The Minister needs to push somewhat harder despite the resistance that’s bound to come from council administrations all over. 

After all there are salaries and superannuation packages at stake, some being very generous. 

Recent tinkering with Local Govt. has not quelled the disquiet and more than occasionally something resembling increasing alarm is detectable among ratepayers.

Therefore, this report; the first of three council investigations; given its recommendations; should be seen by ratepayers’ as a strong signal that it is Local Govt. per se that should be 'under investigation'. 

There are ratepayers all over contemplating better ways Local Govt. can be delivered and with more 

accountability. 

In the end its accountability that is the burning issue and it does not look like the disquiet is going away anytime soon.

CITY HEART: Fantasy or Realism?

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS EXAMINER STORY

The story goes ... "SECTIONS of Charles Street and Paterson Street are slated to become two-way, after traffic flow changes were approved by the Launceston City Council on Monday. ............ Under the motion the Kingsway would become a one-way street in a northerly direction, and parts of Charles Street, Brisbane Street and George Street would be reduced to one lane. ............ Charles Street will be made two-way between Brisbane and York Streets, and Paterson Street will be changed to a two-way street between Charles and St John streets. ............ The changes are dependent on securing funding for the City Heart project.... Click her for the full story

Ratepayers need to be aware that this project depends upon Launceston Council's cargo cult mentality.

Cargo cults typically come out of a combination of crises and Launceston's CBD is clearly suffering from social change and past planning decisions.

Under social stress and fiscal stress cargo cult mentalities develop under leaderships founded upon fiscal mythologies.

Leadership's visions and dreams of a future, often linked to memories of 'better times', projected futures built upon aspirations for a return to a lost past. Such leadership characterise the present as the loss the past and typically meaning that plans for the future fail to acknowledge the reality of change.

The City Heart 'initiative' depends on 'fly-in-money' and if the wish is fulfilled, and in the ways it has been in the past, Launceston's ratepayers will be paying out increasingly unsustainable city rates for the maintenance of the unsustainable development.

It has happened before, which is why Launceston Council's past delusional plans and developments have translated to Launcestonians not benefiting from the economies of scale and paying rates $300 to $400 above the odds.

It is time to stop this nonsense and engage with the communities that council will be extracting ever higher levels of rates and are supposed to be 'servicing'.

Today (Wed Dec 16) The Examiner tells us "Launceston City Council has defended claims that businesses were not consulted about changes to traffic flow in the city throughout the proposal process."

Interestingly .... "A city business owner, who did not wish to be identified, said his business had not been consulted throughout the duration of the proposal process ..... "Making [George Street] two ways was what the plan originally said, and that was what they put to consultation but they're actually making it one way and that was never put out to consultation at all," the business owner said. "We don't know what the plans are, we don't know what parking is available, we know nothing." ... Click here to go to the story

Realities must be faced and the follies of the past need to be avoided. There are solutions but the time has past for them being provided by expensive 'fly-in consultants' and 'cargo cult money' delivered in a marginal electorate on the whiff of an upcoming election.

T Vale

LAUNCESTON'S LAST 2015 MEETING: TAStimes LINK

CLICK HERE TO READ ON TASMANIANtimes

CHRISTMAS IN HOBART: Launceston refuses to be outdone

Click here to go to the Mercury story
HCC Facebook story

HO! HO! HO! CHRISTMAS SPIRIT COMES TO HOBART CITY COUNCIL

"In a rare act of kindness Hobart City Council Aldermen have come together in support of what is considered the biggest act of kindness by any council in Australia.

On Monday all staff, the cities homeless and The Taste of Tasmania vendors (the ones who stuck around) will receive a $300 Myer Gift Card as a Christmas Gift from council.

According to Lord Mayor Sue Hickey “We just want to say thank you to those who supported us throughout the year and this seemed the perfect way to do it. It has been a tough year dealing with all our screw ups and so forth so this is a kind of compensation”.

When asked why The Taste of Tasmania vendors had been included Sue’s response was “They need a good quality shirt for us to rip off their backs at the end of the event and frankly we feel a bit sorry for them”.

Whilst Aldermen were unanimous in their support for the vouchers a motion to also give $100 Myer vouchers to anyone who was unfortunate enough to see the Salamanca Square Christmas Tree as compensation was rejected.

This huge act of kindness was proposed by General Manager Nick Heath who put forward the business case that it makes good fiscal sense to spend $300,000 at Myer to assist them to exceed the self determined target of $50 million and therefore council avoiding having to pay them $875,000.

“We have run the numbers and by spending this much at Myer we will be actually saving the ratepayers $575,000 so it is a win, win situation. We will have to do it for the next four years though. We have extra gift cards for Aldermen to give out as well to buy themselves a few votes. Ronnie has been dishing them out like friend requests” said Heath.

“We weren’t worried at first because we thought it was s good deal but when we realised that the average Myer store turns over $46 million and we have a target of $50 million we kind of figured we were screwed. I might have buggered this one up a bit… I think I might have hit an extra zero on the old Casio or something. But anyways it’s only Monopoly money” Heath continued. “We may have to increase rates by $200 and in return give the households a $150 voucher as well (the -$50 is the administration cost) as it is only fair that they chip in but we will see how this goes first".

A motion was also passed that all Aldermen and senior council staff will only wear Myer clothing and that some staff would be offered vouchers as part of their pay. Some service providers will be expected to accept part payment in Myer vouchers also.

In addition all buskers in the city and at The Taste will be made to use the new “cashless system” and will be compensated in Myer vouchers.

“The buskers will only spend the cash on drugs anyway” said Hickey “so we are doing them a favour. Look at them they could do with a good wash and a change of clothes”.

Ron Christie who looked dashing in a VAN HEUSEN suit and Florsheim shoes said “Look we really got this right I tell you. It is a beautiful store, have you been to see it? It’s wonderful. We did the right thing, the right thing I tell you. I think we will crack the $50 million mark at this rate, we just need to give out enough of these vouchers, hey you journalists don’t earn very much do you, have a voucher and buy yourself something nice. Spend it in this financial year though OK cobber”.

As a thank you for the support Myer will print personalised gift cards with the new Hobart City Council logo on them.

-----------------------------------

This is satire and Hobart City Council will not, to the best of my knowledge, be giving out Myer vouchers. They might change their minds after reading this though." ... LIFTED FROM FACEbook

newDEMOCRACY NEWS ONLINE

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Click here to go to the newsletter

COUNCIL WANTS TO FLOG MORE LAND

Click on the image to enlarge

IN THE EXAMINER CLICK HERE .... THE [PROPOSED?]  sale of the Penny Royal car park to the JAC Group has been recommended for approval at Monday’s Launceston City Council meeting ... [WHAT IS THE HURRY?] ... Property co-ordinator Robert Holmes has authored a report in Monday’s agenda recommending the land be sold to the owners of the Penny Royal site for a price ‘‘at not less than valuation advice’’. .... [WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?] ..... Under current arrangements the site is leased to JAC group for a peppercorn rent of $10 a year until 2028 .... [WHAT COULD THAT MEAN?] ..... JAC Group managing director Dean Cocker said the plan to buy the site was not related to the Gondola proposal, and that the land would remain a car park. .... [WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?] .....  Mr Cocker said he believed the council had plans to expand existing car parks in that area, and the sale would provide them with additional money to do so. .... [COMMERCIAL-IN-COBFIDENCE?] .....  ‘‘[Those upgrades] will obviously involve quite a bit of money, so one way to help to fund that ... would be for us to buy that car park from council, and then they can use the money from the sale to basically go towards helping to upgrade and develop other car parks around the area,’’ he said. .... [WHAT MIGHT THIS MEAN?] .....  ‘‘In this situation we’re the ones who are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make it all presentable and modern for the next 50 years or more – it makes sense that we would spend that money and we’re the owners of it.’’ .... [WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN?] .....  City of Launceston general manager Robert Dobrzynski said the land was not public land. .... [REALLY?] .....  ‘‘An independent valuation has been obtained, in accordance with Section 177 of the Act, and this figure is commercial in confidence,’’ he said. .... [WHAT MIGHT THIS MEAN?] .....  The council will also consider adopting the Reimagining the Gorge Project 2030 Vision on Monday..... [WHY RIGHT NOW?] .....  The final plan has been recommended for approval with the inclusion of a statement that the council would support any commercial development within or adjacent to the Gorge utilising the vista ‘‘provided they are sympathetic to the vision and values of the Cataract Gorge’’ .... [WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN AND WHO ASSESSES?] 

11 MORE QUESTIONS: 

1. How did this land fall off the PUBLIC LAND REGISTER or why didn't it ever get there? 
2. Is its absence on the register here just TOO convenient and WHY just now??
3. Why the secrecy here under the guise of "COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE" ??
4. Has the VALUE been INDEPENDENTLY tested?
5. If 'value' has been tested, HOW, WHEN and by WHOM?
6. If it is to be disposed of, WHY and why not BY OPEN TENDER??
7. Who're the LOSERS, who're the WINNERS and WHAT are the other OPPORTUNITIES?
8. What other COUNCIL land is  NOT on the REGISTER? 
9. Has an audit of PUBLIC LAND been done??
10. Before this point, WHICH aldermen were engaged in this SALE PROCESS?
11. What "PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS" informs this land sale?

RATEPAYER ALERT: LCC's Last Meeting for 2015

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE AGENDA
Penalties for MANY Prizes for a FEW

I note that there are a number of issues on the LCC Agenda for Monday that the cynic could be forgiven for suspecting that they are being rushed through on the last meeting of the year. It's the very time  when people do not have the time or ability to scrutinize the activities of Council. 

The next meeting is not until 5 February 2016 and the interim silly season could well see all kinds consultancies etc come in for cutting an drying. 

A RUNNING THEME IS THE MANNER IN WHICH COUNCIL CONSULTS AND HOW ISSUES ARE RECORDED IN THEIR MINUTES, AND THE DILIGENCE (OR LACK THERE OF) IN HOW COUNCIL DEALS WITH QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS FROM RATEPAYERS. 

It is interesting that Questions on Notice Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 

• Regulation 30 (A councillor, at least seven days before an ordinary Council Meeting or a Council Committee Meeting, may give written notice to the General Manager of a question in respect of which the councillor seeks an answer at that Meeting. An answer to a Question on Notice will be in writing.) But, Questions without Notice Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 - Regulation 29 (Questions without Notice, and any answers to those questions, are not required to be recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting.) So the ratepayers are never going to even know if the latter type questions were ever asked but even if so, what the answers were!! 

Notable items on Monday’s Agenda are:-

• 5.1 City Heart Project Page 91. This contains some very interesting data on how and to whom Council consulted. The analysis is such that it is impossible to scrutinise the results. Lots of participants are recorded, but were they in favour of the final recommendations or not? What ideas or concepts were raised during this process that didn’t catch the imagination or gain support from LCC staff? The inference (but clearly not the case) is that the community overwhelmingly supports the final recommendations – that is seriously unlikely. 

• 6.1 Duck Reach Power Station lease negotiations Page 102 Why the secrecy? The issue of INCREASING the waterflow is being ignored. When will the details of the multiple discussions be divulged? 

• 18.1 Reimagining the Gorge Project Page 107 Council has hijacked this process and added in a conclusion about commercial development that did not arise from the consultation process. Also the JAC Group’s input has been allowed in even though it manipulated the public input and did not pass scrutiny like the rest of the process. Where is the Council’s Cataract Gorge Advisory Committee’s recommendation? 

•  18.2 Sale of the ‘Penny Royal “ carpark Page 114 What is the rush, because the status quo will be continuing until 2028? Importantly, this carpark is to be a free carpark for visitors to Penny Royal AND THE CATARACT GORGE RESERVE. If sold to Penny Royal, the visitors to CGR will be prevented from parking freely there. The Cataract Gorge Advisory Committee advised Council of its opposition to the sale proceeding, so why isn’t the advice there? The current status of the Council owned site is that it is leased to The JAC Group until 2028 for a sum of $10 per annum subject to a condition that the tenant is to maintain a free public car park available for use by any person attending the Penny Royal Complex or the Cataract Gorge. 

• 8.5 Kerbside Organics Page 125 It has taken council over 6 years to reach this conclusion, and of the many enthusiastic submissions from the public, nothing has really been heeded because Council has just gone on its merry way regardless. 

•  8.6 City Heart Traffic and Bus stops Even the police are objecting to the proposal for two-way streets, but to no avail, again only the council officers views matter even ‘though they imply significant public support this is similar to the conclusion drawn in item 15.1 above. Bus Stop Relocations 

1. The St John Street northbound bus stops between York and Brisbane Streets to be reduced from three to two spaces, relocated closer to York Street and redesigned to reflect the positive elements of the St John Street southbound bus stop being greater separation, wider general pedestrian area and shelters to support the separation. 
2.  The St John Street southbound bus stops between Brisbane and Paterson Streets be redesigned and upgraded. 
3. The York Street bus stop between St John and Charles Streets be redesigned and upgraded. The bus stop areas will be subject to detailed design and consultation with directly affected stakeholder(s)/groups. The shop and property owners in St John Street at the present locations want the north-bound bustops removed but their voices are being totally ignored. 
4. And there was a workshop on 7 December concerning the Rate Modelling Approach ........... but we don’t know any more. 

What is Launceston's true financial position?

Click above to enlarge

Well its AGM time again but you could be well and truly excused if the whole thing has passed you by. 

It seems that the intention at Town Hall is make you feel guilty for missing the advertisements and so on. You are supposed to feel like an inadequate ratepayer but fear not the GM, Robert Dobrzynski, is here to tell you everything is OK!

The council is in a "strong position" and you have no need to worry. But perhaps you should.

The tiny surplus, and it is tiny in the scheme of things, and especially so given that the Launceston City Council's budget is in the order of $100million.

You may not remember that General Manager Robert Dobrzynski uses the newspaper to put a nice shine on things but at other times he is out there predicting big deficits ahead.

Therefore this $80K will be needed to cut the losses ahead, losses that nobody is talking about, least of all the aldermen.

What must be said about the financial reporting that Mr. Dobrzynski presents is that in the end it is little more than empty self serving rhetoric. There is no detail and no way to get it.

The figures, if you look closely, seem to be designed to hide the real situation from the ratepayers of the city. Most importantly the aldermen all seem to be missing in action and leaving the story telling and spin to the general manager. Where are they?

It was not that long ago that Ald. Sands was telling us that LCC had two accountants on the council and as for the mayor, an accountant, where is he?

If accountability is what ratepayers expect from their representatives it appears as if they, the aldermen,  do not see it as their job to deliver it.

The advertising for this AGM falls well short of requirements.  OK all the right boxes are ticked in regard to the statutory requirements but do they hit their mark?

Not so very long ago council AGMs were well attended but last year's attendance was shockingly low ... less than 10 attendees.

While ratepayers keep quiet their rates will continue to rise without constraint.

Already Launceston's rates are the highest in Tasmania and many Launcestonians have interstate relatives and friends in large cities paying significantly less ... even in Sydney and Melbourne.

T Vale Dec 6 2015

North Midlands Council and Mayor Have Cut The Mustard

INDEPENDENT mediation between Launceston Airport and the Northern Midlands Council is expected to solve a three-year rates dispute by early 2016.

The council met with federal Local Government Minister Paul Fletcher, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s chief of staff and opposition infrastructure spokesman Anthony Albanese in Canberra on Thursday.

Following the meetings, Mr Fletcher sent a release stating that the Commonwealth would engage an independent expert to assess what land the airport could be charged for, and  how much.

The expert will identify what airport sites were subject to ex-gratia payments, made in lieu of rates, value the land, assess what rates should be applied and calculate a suitable figure to be paid to the council.

‘‘The independent expert will provide the Commonwealth with a determination of the amount that Launceston Airport is required to pay to Northern Midlands Council, in accordance with the lease provisions,’’ Mr Fletcher said....... CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL STORY

North Midlands Council Ratepayers clearly have a Mayor and Council willing to represent their ratepayers. Mayor Downie is to be commended for taking the council's rate issue seriously and following through. 

While the issue is not quite solved, a resolution does seem to be not too far away. Congratulations Mayor Downie! 

 An interesting by-product of the 'rate struggle' here is the notion of the implied moral obligation to pay-up that puts a range of non-ratepayer organisations, institutions, etc. in the spotlight.

If some of these 'groups' are not actually delivering the social and cultural dividend they purport to be doing so, as contentious as that may be, it is perhaps time to look again at which ones are justifiably being subsidised .

Currently universities are in the spotlight in so much as the one in Tasmania is not only revelling in its 'exemption' but fronting up for free handout of land. After that there are retirement villages and medical centres testing the water for a 'free ride'.

The properties, and the operations carried out on them, are all users of the services other ratepayers pay for. An independent assessor might well, in some cases, suggest that like airports some may need to make ex-gratia payments in the way airports are required to.

It'll be interesting to see if there is a council out there prepared to look at this issue for the benefit of the wider ratepayer community.

Universities, for instance, need to be good corporate citizens in line with the high moral ground that they claim for themselves. If they're not fiscal contributors to the communities they rely upon to survive they depend upon a social licence from the community and without either they become insensitive to their obligations to their constituency. 

All this applies to a range of other 'operations' when and where the social dividend is unclear or at times ambiguous.

UTAS AND INVERESK LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

FROM THE EXAMINER

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

WHAT POEPLE ARE SAYING

CLICK HERE TO LINK TO THIS STORY

UTAS   LINK TO EXAMINER PAGE

THE alarming removal of courses, functions and staffing from the northern UTAS campus stands in contrast to the promise by the university of 10,000 new enrolments at Inveresk.

Ratepayer representatives are understandably suspicious of fulfillment by the university of this aspiration particularly when valuable land is being gifted to the university.

The council perceives ongoing social and economic compensation, a substantial ‘dividend’ for ratepayers and the city from university activity at Inveresk in exchange for the land.

And the proposal only makes sense if that undeniably significant activity is the outcome. The problem, however, is that while council has included conditions about timing and completion it has not specified performance conditions about increased enrolments and university activity.

 Without that increased staffing and enrolment the proposal is the sort of ‘dud’ ratepayers suspect.

Only by council specifying these conditions as part of the approval process is there sufficient incentive for the university to deliver to the city and region the justification for alienating public land. 

It is not unreasonable to specify these conditions, given the university’s own repeated promises. 

— DR MICHAEL POWELL, Lecturer, Launceston.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Utas  LINK TO EXAMINER PAGE 

THE Federal and State Government fund UTAS , all three have multi million dollars budgets. Launceston City Council (ratepayers) has a budget about $100 million. Why should the ratepayers of Launceston subsidies (give Willis Street and old Velodrome) to UTAS for nothing. Treasurer Peter Gutwein stated he would make available $60 million to help the move of Utas to Inveresk. Well come on Peter, let us see your generosity. Bass electorate was very kind at the last state election voting into office three Liberal members. Will you compensate the ratepayers for loss of funds?

— BASIL J. FITCH, South Launceston
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Tamar  LINK TO EXAMINER PAGE

I TOO was pleased to read the editorial piece contributed by The Examiner in regard to the lost Tamar River. I could not help to agree with every written line but I also believe there needs to be a much deeper investigation into the vast and growing contamination problem that has silently been allowed to occur. The big talk of moving the college to the floating swamp area to me is astounding, supplying even more sewage and obviously more nasties into the convenient North Esk while the wisdom of all this it seems it can only happen in Launceston, all this mess would have to be attended to before there can be any hope of restoring the rivers flow even then it is estimated it could take up to 3 years of full flow to bring the current silt deposits under control.

— GEOFF SMEDLEY, Launceston.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

UTAS   LINK TO EXAMINER PAGE

I’M SURE most people in the North would agree that the Newnham Campus of UTAS has the ambiances and capacity to be a top class learning centre. Students would want the space, the beautiful new buildings (as suggested for Inveresk), lets not waste this opportunity to give Launceston a boot up the ladder to stardom in academia. Let’s embrace the space in Newnham and watch it fly, instead of cramped Inveresk where it will wither and die. 

— RON BAINES, Kings Meadows.

Nth Midlands Council Holds Federal Govt. to Account.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THIS STORY

"NORTHERN Midlands ratepayers have been told they will need to stump up $148, and an additional $45 every year after, to cover the $1 million rates debt left by Launceston Airport. 

The Northern Midlands Council wrote to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Tuesday, calling for the Commonwealth to take ‘‘immediate’’ steps to terminate Australia Pacific Airports Corporation’s lease on Launceston Airport. 

 It also sent letters to its 12,000 residents, advising them of the impact caused by the debt – 12 per cent of the council’s income. 

In the letter to Mr Turnbull, the council said it was disappointed that Infrastructure and Regional Development Minister Warren Truss had not taken action regarding the three-year rates debt. The council is not privy to the airport’s land contract with the federal government, but said it assumed clauses similar to the following were included: 

 ●  Clause 26.1: The lessee must pay, on or before the due date, all rates, land tax and taxes without contribution from the lessor. 

 ●  Clause 26.2 (a): Where rates are not payable under sub-clause 26.1 because the airport site is owned by the Commonwealth, the lessee must promptly pay to the relevant government authority such amount as may be notified to the lessee by such government authority as being equivalent to the amount which would be payable for rates as if such rates were leviable or payable in respect of the airport site. 

Northern Midlands mayor David Downie said that as it had no jurisdiction on Commonwealth land, the federal government must pursue the airport.

‘‘The Commonwealth as lessor is entitled to take steps pursuant to the lease in the event of a breach of the tenant obligations,’’ Cr Downie said. 

‘‘On the basis of the above information, the Northern Midlands Council requests the Commonwealth government take immediate steps to terminate its lease with the Australia Pacific Airports Corporation for breach of its obligation to make ex gratia payments to council. 

‘‘The corporation at this time is in arrears of over $1 million. 

 ‘‘The Northern Midlands Council welcomes a meeting with you as Prime Minister to remedy this injustice to our local community.’’ .... END OF ARTICLE

Mayor David  Downie  must be congratulated for taking the argument right up to the Federal Government on behalf of his constituency. 

Prime Minister Turnbull, hopefully, will be able to see the justice that needs to be delivered here. 

Minister Warren Truss, , when he answered Eric Hutchinson's question in parliament offered only the faintest of hope to North Midlands' ratepayers, overdosed as his answer was with more that the usual amount 'polly-waffle'. 

Speaking of politicians, given that the 'place' in question is "Launceston Airport", the member for Bass, the adjoining electorate, has been extraordinarily quiet despite his predilection for 'noisyness' during question time in parliament. 

Not a squeak out of him in support of reasonableness, at least not a squeak that anyone can hear. 

While ratepayers are about to receive $148 bills for Launceston Airport's apparent, or alleged, recalcitrance, one imagines that ratepayers know that their Mayor and council is on their side and actually representing their interests with due diligence. 

Even if it is a speculation, one can imagine Nth Midlands Council managing Launceston Airport, and making a good fist of it, at the expense of its current managers who it seems are (were?) so intent on ripping off the ratepayers. 

Mayor Downie and his fellow councillors are setting a standard that should not be extraordinary and while doing so setting a benchmark in Local Governance that is refreshing to witness.

Accountability, Participatory Citizenship and Annual General Meetings

COPIED HERE WITH PERMISSION

TO: Mayor, General Manager and Aldermen [City of Launceston – CoL]

As you are well aware the purpose of an Annual General Meeting (AGM) for ‘operations’ involving the general public (ratepayers in the case of Local Govt), and are held as required by law. Likewise, the CoL Organisational Values and The GM’s Community Engagement policy expounds the necessities of all of this and more still.

The CoL AGM is held to inform ratepayers of previous and future activities. It has been also been an opportunity for ratepayers to receive copies of the council's accounts as well as reviewing fiscal information for the past year. In short, an AGM is an opportunity for constituents to hold their governing body to account. 

With the revision of the Local Govt. Act, and the proposition of AGMs being held at the discretion of a council, the question that was hanging in the air is, in practical terms, how would constituents hold their local government to account between elections?

Consistent with accountability, AGMs are an opportunity for constituents to receive reports on the council’s operation and for ‘council’ to field questions regarding the directions the operation has taken and will take in the future. Without this opportunity what assurances are there that constituents can formally hold aldermen to account?

Furthermore, as you are no doubt well aware, an AGM has been an important occasion where ratepayers may move motions both on and not on notice. 

The LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 72B set out the minimum set of statutory circumstances applying to an AGM. It is notable that the Act is a product of the 20th C and is consequently now outmoded and significantly compromised given the changes in current communication technologies. In terms of the review of the Act it is important that it continues to afford constituents with opportunities to ‘functionally’, rather than notionally, hold their representatives to account.

Arguably, the Act as it now stands, its requirements do not fit the circumstances of the 21st C and therefore it is consequently both redundant and compromised.  Again, arguably the Act is in need of a root and branch reimagination and in ways that functionally deliver greater/adequate accountability. 

IF it is intended that AGM meetings, when and they are held, continue to be as relevant, and deliver accountability, as was intended in 1993, how will this now be achieved in a 21st C context? If accountability is an imperative, the advertising and marketing of such meetings needs to be:

• Updated; and made relevant to the 21st C communication technologies; and

•Made to fit the currency of the present operating circumstances. 

Neither is currently the case.

Currently, hardcopy newspapers are read less and less and information is conveyed more and more via digital media cum social media. 

Importantly, the intent of the Local Govt Act can be enhanced, and it needs to be, in order that constituents (residents & ratepayers) can be more effectively engaged with the governance of their city – their precinct, their place.

Despite the importance of such meetings to Launceston’s ratepayers, arguably, the upcoming meeting is rather poorly advertised albeit in accord with “statutory requirements” and marketed even more poorly. Indeed, it has been argued that council is actively working to make CoL AGMs irrelevant and obsolete. Sadly, effectively this has already been achieved.

Against this background I submit that Launceston’s citizens, business people, residents and ratepayer need a real opportunity to have a public meeting called by council where issues of concern can be both aired and formally dealt with. Adequately marketed, appropriately resourced in a 21st C context, timed appropriately and sufficiently advertised such a public meeting with broad agenda opportunities is likely draw a significant attendance.

Does the city of Launceston hold its residents and ratepayers in contempt? Is the city of Launceston actually committed to the principle of accountability?

Increasingly Local Govt. elsewhere is employing the strategy of “Citizens Assemblies” – sometime called Citizen’s Juries or Panels – to enhance both their effectiveness and their accountability. Currently in Tasmania, and in Launceston in particular, it is increasingly evident that Local Governance has reached a point where such a mechanism could play an important role. 

For quite a long time in Australia the newDEMOCRACY Foundation – www.newdemocracy.com.au – has been facilitating such assemblies and reportedly with considerable success in Victoria and South Australia in particular.  

Therefore, I ask that council consider this opportunity and empanel such an assembly charged with assessing and reporting on the effectiveness of the CoL’s operation and its accountability as soon as is practical.

I look forward to Council’s early response in context with the upcoming City of Launceston AGM. 

Regards,
Ray Norman

Trevallyn