CITIZENS' PETITION ON UTAS LAND DEAL PRESENTED TO LAUNCESTON COUNCIL

 CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE

  CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE

Today the citizen's petition with 1493 signatures calling for a Public Meeting in regard to Council's in commitment to gift land to UTas was presented to the city's General Manager.  The Local Govt. Act 1993 requires Council to call a pub;oc meeting if 5% of the electorate, or 1,000 residents on the electoral roll, call for such a meeting.

Council has 42 days to verify the veracity of the petition. The letter accompanying the petition calls upon Launceston City Council to call a public meeting in accord with SECTION 57 of the Local Government Act 1993 for the purpose of: 

1. Discussing Council’s decision to gift land known as Willis Street Car Park and the Old Velodrome site to the University of Tasmania; 
2.  Calling upon Council to rescind the motion passed by the Full Council Meeting 9th November 2015; and to 
3. Discuss the proposal to place this land on the open market via a Public Auction with a Reserve Price of $5milliion. 

 Furthermore, it is requested that:

1. The meeting time be 7 PM 
2.  The meeting be chaired by an independent chairperson; 
3. Council and spokespeople for the petitioners be given adequate time to state their respective cases – 15 minutes; 
4. The meeting accept any motion from the floor for the consideration of Council; 
5.  Council consider the following people as appropriate independent chair people: Hon. Rosemary Armitage MLC; Hon. Don Wing AM; Hon Kerry Finch MLC; and Hon Ivan Dean MLC.

Given that half as many again signatures are required have been provided there should be no inhibitions in calling the meeting promptly. Indeed, there are many reasons to rethink the whole UTas relocation  proposal given the level of community disquiet.

It has been said that the the number petitioners "is only a small number of people who disagree with Council gifting land to UTas" but in the scheme of things it needs to be considered that:

• Only three Aldermen won their seats on council with more votes than there are signature on the petition – Ald. van Zetten, McKkenzie and Finlay;
• Five won their seats with less votes than signatures on the petition;
• With the other four winning their positions with less than 1,000 votes and three with less than half the number of petitioners. 
• See http://www.tec.tas.gov.au/LocalGovernmentElections2014/2014LGResults/LauncestonCity.html
• And only seven aldermen were in attendance to receive the petition.

In any event if the petition makes one point it is that the aldermen, and council by extension, on this issue ate least, are not connected with their constituents and have failed to include their constituents' concerns in their decision making processes.

CLICK HERE SEE EXAMINER STORY

The Election Go Round, The Tamar And The Gorge

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Launceston Flood Authority calls to South Esk to be 
reinstated to fix the Tamar estuary's silt problem
By MATT MALONEY March 28, 2016, 8 p.m.
CLICK HERE

Ratepayers Association has been canvassing the idea of reclaiming waterflow for the South Esk River for some years now, with little recognition or credit by The Examiner.

Our summation asks for at least the full flow to be restored to the old Duck Reach Power Station, not just the half flow presently proposed. Presently the proposal is to reduce the intake pipe/tunnel size by half, forever limiting the possible flow.

We also argue for the valves in the dam to become mini-power generators, and although the replacement valves are currently being installed. Presently the 'valve replacement strategy' has bee  suspended so that Trevallyn Power Station is kept operating during the present power crises. 

Moreover, we also argue for generators to be installed in the riverbed itself, so all in all the water for generation is used more than once.

Despite the lessons to be learned from the present management regime there is no sign of the valve being replaced by 'generator valves'.

It may be that Trevallyn Power Station could continue operating, albeit on a reduced basis, but during floods, could be fully commissioned as there would be more water through Cataract Gorge than can be easily managed.

IN SUMMARY: Water flow in South Esk River via Cataract Gorge:

• Water is diverted from the natural course via Cataract Gorge of the South Esk River via the Trevallyn Dam to the Trevallyn Power Station, hence via the Trevallyn Tailrace to the Tamar River. 
• The Trevallyn Power Station is a 'run of the river' power station, meaning that the rate of flow to the power station is regulated by the rate of flow entering the Trevallyn Dam, save for a 0.48 cumec ( has been increased to 2.5 cumec) flow allowed beneath the Trevallyn Dam to flow into the Cataract Gorge section of the South Esk River.
• The intake level at Trevallyn Dam is approx 2.M below the top of the dam, meaning the lower level water remains captured in the dam until it flows under the dam to Cataract Gorge, albeit at a very slow rate of 0.48 cumecs (has been increased to 2.5 cumecs). 
• Prior to decommissioning, the Duck Reach Power Station, diverted water from the South Esk River via a low level dam, at a maximum flow of 4.6 cumec (calculated by maximum cross-section of flume). Apart from a periodic lessening of water flow in the South Esk River between the low level dam and the Duck Reach Power Station (Deadman's Hollow section), all South Esk water continued to flow through Cataract Gorge to Tamar River. 
• The effect of the Trevallyn Dam diversion is that the 'fresh' water entering the dam is all diverted to the Trevallyn Power Station, leaving only 'static' water trapped in the dam to flow via Cataract Gorge, apart from periods of flooding when significant water overflows the dam. 

Providing a power station is constructed at Duck Reach, and even better if mini power stations are built in the Trevallyn Dam wall to replace the manual valves, then:

•  A total of approx 5 cumecs of water could flow through Cataract Gorge, calculated as 0.48 cumec via Dead Man's Hollow and 4.6 cumec max. via Duck Reach Power Station. 

• A flow of approx. 5 cumecs will be beneficial to improving the environmental water flow impacts in Cataract Gorge, without overflowing the causeway at First Basin; and thus 

• Delivering a benefit by lessening of silt in the yacht basin area because less 'flocculation' of clay will occur due the presence of additional fresh water there.

Launceston Flood Authority chairman Alan Birchmore belief that "almost every problem that we've got in the upper reaches is to do with waterflow,” might not be justified if the full spectrum of evidence is taken into account.

Hydro Tasmania installed a dam on the South Esk in 1955 to service the Trevallyn Power Station 

The flood authority's  convincing Hydro to release 25 cumecs of water from the dam over three days in 2013 after the silt raking programs experiment, and to flush out the Tamar’s yacht basin has had contestable outcome. 

The ways the Tamar gets choked by mud and sludge are various and Launceston's stormwater management surely plays a significant part in it. The full consequences of reconfiguring the city's geography needs to be studied from multiple perspectives and involving a broad spectrum of the community.

If the mud is considered "visually un-aesthetic" then maybe we need to learn how change that perception. If the problem is too much sewage sludge, and the toxins that come with it, then maybe an increase in river low will help but all by itself it is unlikely to solve the problem.

Interesting, with an election on the way 'the state of the river'  an  'the Gorge' will get the kind of airing designed to "distract the punter until next time".  We might do well to keep this in mind this election – and maybe Examiner sales may even peak.

Citizens' Petition To Be Presented To Council Wednesday March 30

CLICK ABOVE TO ENLARGE

Curiously the Mayor seems to have adopted a position where he is deliberately privileging the "Property Council, the Chamber of Commerce, prominent private developers like Errol Stewart, TasTAFE and many other" (unnamed!) over and above ordinary ratepayers. 

After all these 'stakeholders' might be expected to – or even be expecting to – turn a dollar out the development phase of any large scale development project. Nothing inherently wrong with that except that it is a slanted and self-serving world view.

The Mayor in particular, via his dogged defence of the agreed 'land gift' to UTas, has put ordinary ratepayers' interests to one side. Is the Mayor actually invoking Matthew 12:1-11 were "Spiritual gifts were extraordinary powers bestowed in the first ages, to convince unbelievers, and to spread the [word]"?

If so, ordinary ratepayers, it appears, are being required bear the burden of funding ancillary infrastructure for the benefit of UTas – a non-contributor to the city's recurrent budget albeit that the institution is a significant benefactor in regard to Council services.

Indeed, it can be argued that Council is proactively discriminating against the greater part of the city's ratepayers in failing to consult with them in a meaningful way. It would appear that the risk in doing so, from Council's adopted perspective, would be to receive the kind of unwelcomed feedback embodied in the petition. It is an unavoidable and self-fulfilling prophesy!

Someone, somewhere, has said that the only real mistake is the one from which nothing is learnt. So if as they say, life is a process, not an end, mistakes are an inherent part of 'the process'. Thus mistakes are lost opportunities unless something is achieved via mistakes. Suffice to say unless the lessons learned are put into practice nothing at all can be achieved.

Here it seems that there is a 'Mexican stand off' in play and there a need for something that will break the nexus and perhaps its time to consider Proverbs 28:13: Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.

Launceston Council: Questions With And Without Notice

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

These  questions being posed by ex-alderman Mr. Basil Fitch are the kind of questions aldermen do not appear to be asking on behalf of their constituents. That is almost all aldermen except for Ald. Sands who it seems has been asking questions about tertiary sewerage treatment. If he hasn't had his questions entertained by the General Manager or Mayor he has certainly been openly advocating tertiary treatment for Launceston's sewerage.

If they are being asked then they are not being reported on in the press and that is a failure either on the part of the press or the aldermen collectively.

Aldermen, all in receipt of substantial 'aldermanic allowances', do not appear to be undertaking independent research on behalf of their constituency. Why does that seem to be so? Are they being discouraged from doing so? Is the quality of the advice coming to the aldermen from the city's management exemplary and/ faultless? How might constituents measure aldermanic KPIs – Key Performance Indicators?

The questions that flow from these questions goes to 'aldermanic productivity'. Similarly, if the aldermen are not doing the research and community consultation who is? Indeed, what 'actual' community consultation is going on apart from the potentially malleable Internet driven processes initiated by 'management'?

Furthermore, it seems that Council spends $3million to $4million on consultancies per annum. In fact, what cost benefits are actually derived from this expenditure and who is assessing it? Likewise, it seems that much/all of this 'out sourced advice' is confidential, why might that be so? 

In fact it can be said that the burning question in Launceston, going by performance, is where are the aldermen and what are they actually doing?

What Kind of Flooding Is Launceston Actually Planning For?

Currently there is quite a lot being speculated about and quite a bit of is impacted upon by the city’s infrastructure. That infrastructure is somewhat impacted upon by the city’s geography and the ‘spectre of the 100 Year Flood’ is an important element of that. Not too far away from that is the “health of the river”.  It has been claimed that the river’s current state is not too far away from “open sewer status”.

At election time this kind of discussion inevitably becomes an ‘Urgent Issue’ – that is until the next election. In the meantime planning seems to go on as if all this was simply a peripheral interest.  Over the years many of ‘the big issues’ have been put to one side but time is catching up.

In the post-industrial circumstances the city is now in comes the question, what is the city’s future?  In the city’s changing circumstances what role will education and training play in the potential service industry future? As has always been the case in Launceston, post settlement,, just how well will its geography serve the city for the imaginings attributed to its ‘the future’?

Then come the questions about what are in fact the long term plans for the city and what informs them? Who is planning what for Launceston and on what information? These maps may provide an insight into the realm that is before ‘the community’ and assist in some way in contextualising the questions that now need to be asked in the context of an open dialogue.

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

LINK HERE http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/news/global-mapping-choices

CoL FLOOD LINK http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=174



eMAIL: launcestonPR@bigpond.com

LAUNCESTON'S VERY DIRTY RIVER

ABC STORY: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-24/sewerage-mattresses-clean-up-waterways/7273550
EXAMINER STORY: http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3800920/tamar-health-a-high-priority/?cs=95

Grass mattresses used at sewerage treatment plant to help purify sewage
By Elly Bradfield Updated about 3 hours ago

A trial at a Lockyer Valley sewerage treatment facility hopes to change the way waste water is treated by using mattresses to reduce chemical and electricity use.
The plant at Forrest Hill, west of Brisbane, is using floating mattresses to purify sewage.
Queensland Urban Utilities spokeswoman Michelle Cull said the trial was a Queensland first and involved growing native varieties of grass on the mattresses.
"It's a bit different to a mattress you sleep on," Ms Cull said.
"They're specially engineered plastic mattresses and they're designed for this purpose.
"They have been used to grow 400 varieties of wetland grass plants, which draw toxins out of the water — things like carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus.
"So it's a natural way that we are cleansing the waste water — a bit like nature's kidney."
Ms Cull said it was a completely natural process that did not require chemicals or electricity.
Once the water is treated by the native grasses, it is purified with chlorine and then pumped to a local farmer who uses it for irrigating his crop.
First trial 'eaten by a family of hungry turtles'
But Ms Cull said there were setbacks when all the grass during the first trial died.
"The first trial was eaten by a family of hungry turtles," she said.
Ms Cull said there were thousands of Brisbane short neck turtles living at the facility in the lagoon.
The species of turtle are omnivores, eating anything they can fit into their mouths.
"Since that first setback we've now covered the roots with mesh and netting so that the turtles can't eat the roots again," Ms Cull said.
"It was a bit of a case of 'the turtles ate my project'."
The two-year trial began a year ago.
Urban Utilities has found that one mattress in a pond can save up to $5,000 annually.
If the project stays afloat, it could be rolled out to other regional facilities.
Topics: environmental-impact <http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/environmental-impact> , environmental-management <http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/environmental-management> , environmental-policy <http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/environmental-policy> , environmental-technology <http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/environmental-technology> ,recycling-and-waste-management <http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/recycling-and-waste-management> , forest-hill-4342 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/forest-hill-4342> , lockyer-4344 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/lockyer-4344> , qld <http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/qld>
First posted Thu at 1:28pm

RELATED STORY FROM LONDON: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/29/worlds-biggest-floating-solar-farm-power-up-outside-london

eMAIL: launcestonPR@bigpond.com

Robotic One Dimensionality At Work At Launceston's Tip

CLICK HERE FOR THE EXAMINER STORY AND THE COUNCIL'S SPIN

Polystyrene might keep your coffee hot without burning your hand, but plastic foam – more commonly known as Styrofoam – is one of the most harmful materials around when it comes to the environment. This petroleum-based plastic has gained a lot of negative attention in recent years, prompting bans in many cities such as New York City and Washington D.C. But some cities are still on the Styrofoam bandwagon. Check out the infographic here to see why it’s time to ditch the stuff as often as we can. 

So Launceston has invested in Polly – a recycling 'robot' – to better combat the huge amount of polystyrene  – one of the most widely used plastics on the planet – that makes its way into landfill each year. Perhaps a timely move but on face value not necessarily a well thought through initiative.

Launceston's robot melts the polystyrene/styrofoam into ingots which are sent on for recycling. There are some interesting thing in play here but more of that later. This simply put the material back in circulation in order to go on threatening 'the environment' in time and possibly time and time again.

Mayor Albert van Zetten has said that people would now be able to dispose of their polystyrene for free at the "Waste Centre". Here we go again, the  "Waste Centre"that 'cost centre' Launceston's council insists that 'resources' get to be wasted in order that the status quo can be maintained.

Yes, yes, polystyrene in landfill is a concern and up a large volume of space compared to its weight but only if it is imagined as 'waste' and ignored as a 'resource'. 

Polystyrene's environmental impact s pretty well known and like plastic bags every effort should be made to mitigate its environmental impacts.

As for the "Council [being] thrilled to be able to install this machine at the Launceston Waste Centre and to cut down on the amount of polystyrene that is going to landfill in Northern Tasmania", well it is a bit of a worry in one-dimensionality.  People just dropping polystyrene off for recycling is hardly dealing with the issues that need need to be dealt with.

Possibly Local government needs to give first priority to engaging with the community and persuading people to refuse and/or resist the burgeoning use of polystyrene. polystyrene resource, and sustainably, Repurposing and reinventing 'the resource' would/should/could be a second tier strategy with recycling being the 'last ditch' strategy. But here we have it being put out there as the 'way to go'.

Increasingly there are bio-degradable packaging material becoming available and local government has a roll to play in ensuring that they get greater acceptance.

Repurposing and reinventing 'a resource' comes with the potential of 'keeping the material/resource out of the environment' long-term – or at least much longer than disposable packaging materials. But repurposing and reinventing things requires innovation and enterprise. Neither of these qualities have a place in 'cost centre management' and more to the point they run counter to the maintenance of the status quo – the condition that also tends to maintain salary levels with benefits. Moreover, the status quo allows for 'empire growth' which in turn can be sold as a 'good'.

The demonstrated advantage of 'cost centre management' in local government is that apart from being self-sustaining and additional funding can be conscripted – and typically by stealth. This is a paradigm that has been in operation in Launceston for decades – longer arguably – and it is time that it is challenged.

The images here are a quick survey of the various was polystyrene can be repurposed and reimagined in order to keep it well out of the way of "landfill" albeit not always perfectly. However, do not imagine that you will find a 'council operative' enthusiastically cheering you on. This kind of think disrupts the status quo!

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

LAUNCESTON AND FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

It is becoming increasingly evident that Launceston City Council is committed to maintaining the status quo, or at least in regard to growing the 'Council Empire'.

Unfortunately, the 'status quo' can be taken to mean several things and not all of them praise worthy. 

There are implications in regard to a recent media release to do with Council's upcoming budget. It’s being flagged that Council fees will rise and there should be no surprise in that as it's a scenario repeated annually. 

Apparently, the upcoming budget’s general baseline will see a 2% rise in fees. Supposedly this “will reduce the burden on ratepayers” and charge service users the cost of providing the service.  This is but a 'softener' for quite possibly increases elsewhere.

If this was actually a serious proposition the Council rate demands would be broken up into their constituent parts – Waste Management Fee, QVMAG Levy, York Park Levy, Recreation Facilities Levy, Infrastructure Maintenance Levy and so on. 

The argument against that more than likely would be that it is too complex to provide such a break down and maintain that kind of accountability. But this is 2016! 

In a 21st Century context you would have to ask why such accounting might be thought to be too complex given that large corporations currently maintain up-to-the-minute accounting across broad spectrum operations. 

UNPLANNED EXPENDITURE ALLOCATIONS 

Then there is unplanned expenditures that all too often pop into the equation and that, apparently, add to Council’s (ratepayer's!) debt burden and quite significantly. 

Take for example the $60,000 of projected expenditure allocated to receiving two Chinese delegations this year. 

Ald. Gibson is to be congratulated for raising the issue of ‘cost benefit’. Going by Examiner reporting, the value in receiving these delegations is all rather hazy – at least in the  minds of aldermen.

Indeed, are there any strategic objectives? Or are the outcomes being left to chance? How are these visits to be managed? To what end?

If Council is managing the visits how were the projected costs arrived at? If Council isn’t managing the hosting, then who is? 

In fact, what are these projected costs actually for? Furthermore, what is the strategic purpose in receiving these delegations? Indeed, what is the value in Council hosting these delegations? Where is it articulated to those called upon to pick up the tab?

There may well be benefits but what are they understood to be? When will those who cough up the cash be told about it?

The ratepayers will, it seems, be picking up the bills but for what benefit or what dividend? Apart from Ald. Gibson, why aren’t the aldermen asking these questions and passing their perceptions on to their constituency? Possibly this money would be equally well spent at the casino. Or is that the plan?

PRUDENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT 

Quite apart from the inbuilt irrationalities, and the potentially unsustainable City Heart Project, Quadrant Mall traders are clearly being exposed to unacceptable risks to do with the loss of business and the potential loss of livelihoods. 

These traders were not included in the City Heart Planning process in any meaningful way. When it came work to start the work they were advised that it was planned to take place over several months. 

There is much to be said about that process such as it is. There also much to be said about the planning processes such as they have been.

However, currently, the big questions seem to be to do with the implementation of the plan such as it is. 

For instance, apparently the tiles being used to pave the mall are being sourced in Western Australia. Why is this? Indeed, at what additional cost are ratepayers being required to cover as a consequence of this ‘planning decision’? Indeed, was this a planned decision? If it was, in accord with what expert advice under SECTION 65 of 'The Act' did it proceed?

So much for "Progress With Prudence"!

What's more, has there been any consideration given to the ways traders can be assisted to help meet the loss of business reported as being 40% to 60% in some cases? Is anyone on Council at risk of an "operational loss"?

Heaven forbid that Council and UTas actually get together to sweep away sensible environmental and infrastructural concerns in the cause of 'development' and the spirit of "she'll be right."

ACCOUNTABILITY 

In asking the questions posed here it can be anticipated that ‘Council’ will seek to avoid answering them. 

However, ratepayers’ funds are being employed and it seems they can expect a much lower level of accountability than if they were investors in a corporation with a similar operational budget to Launceston City Council.

Chances are a program such as FOUR CORNERS would pursue the recalcitrant 'operatives' and do some shaming at the very least but the toothless regional press is ever likely to leave such messiness "well alone".

In fact it increasingly apparent that the operational wing of Launceston City Council is self-assessing and driven by some need to maintain the status quo as a worst case scenario or grow the ‘empire’ at the ratepayers cost wherever, and whenever that is possible.

Then there is the spectre of an opaque "commercial-in-confidence" 'asset sale' for something in excess of the valuer's valuation – or something of the like. Is accountability a discretionary concept?

Quadrant Mall Spin?

CLICK HERE FOR THE EXAMINER STORY

Launceston City Council has come to the conclusion that all is not as it should or could be in the Quadrant Mall. So, it is trying to repair the damage its done and is likely to continue to do in the Mall.

Late as it is the council is trying to tell 'the public' that the Mall is still open for business. Isn't it a bit late?

From the get-go Quadrant Mall traders have been frustrated in their attempts to express their concerns about the potentially devastating impact this project may well have upon their trading via its method of implementation.

These concerns were expressed well before works commenced, but it seems to no effect because up went the barricades anyway and now the mayor is walking the Mall trying to placate the traders.

Clearly, this project is being done to the community – traders, shoppers and others – not with the community. It is an exemplar of the flaws in the 'top down' approach. 

Council is spending $1.9 million of ratepayer's money on the redevelopment of the Quadrant Mall. Work started at the end of February, and, surprise, surprise, some businesses are now saying that their trading is suffering.

Interestingly, it seems that the project proceeded against the background that there may well be collateral damage (acceptable damage?) and one has to ask, is this acceptable representational governance? Is such damage acceptable or even inevitable? Where is the accountability?

So what to do? It appears as if the answer is put on a band-aid and hope the bleeding stops. Advertising the Mall to people who already know that it is there might work but then again it might not. What then?

Apparently, mayor Albert van Zetten thinks that it will all be worth it in the end. Now he seems to be recognising that there are "issues that need to be worked through". Is it not, issues that needed to be worked through some time ago?

But why so late and with so little recognition of the issues? What kind of community engagement has there been? If it had been adequate, or even relevant, then why are there unforeseen issues right now? Who didn't the planner listen to or even ask?

Clearly the Quadrant Mall is a valuable shopping precinct and all through this now obviously ill considered, ill conceived even, project it is important that businesses remain open to allow them to keep the city vital. How can it be done?

According to 'The Examiner' Cityprom is holding a ``QM Tuesday Flash Sale'' between 10am and 5pm.

But it seems Cityprom didn't explain what one was to either 'The Examiner' nor the Mall traders. Intrepid shoppers may find out by picking their way through the barricades.

The really worrying thing here is what is being exposed. Has there been any planning? Well yes, but by whom, when, by what method and was is real or effective ?

Who hasn't been listened to? Who hasn't been doing the listening?

These will be questions that are going to plague the council for a long time to come.

NEED WE BE ALARMED?

Click on the image to enlarge

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE MERCURY

Rubbish Service Redefined In Glenorchy

CLICK HERE FOR THE MERCURY STORY

This is one of those stories when you scratch your head and wonder, “who the hell is driving the bus here”. 

Apparently the application here has been before a planning tribunal no less and it still comes up wanting. 

If all that is being presented here is all that there is to it, then it means that if you want to recover the resources, your resources, otherwise known as “rubbish” you can only do it in little bits so as not to displace, or even threaten a little bit, a council functionaries job security or her/his reason for being. 

It seems that there are local administrations in sophisticated societies that demand new developments plan to manage the 'facility's' own waste – and on site. Many even not only encourage on-site resource recovery but insist upon it. 

Is this not what MONA is proposing? However it seems that that come hell or high water functionary down at ‘the council’ actually want to look silly – and internationally too. 

The question these 'council drones' do not seem to have asked themselves is “just how silly can I afford to look?” It seems that there are no bounds! 

For an out-of-the-box person like David Walsh there is always a solution. Twerps, bureaucratic twerps at that, are as likely as not to get his juices flowing. 

You see David does already own a “SHIT MACHINE” and it should be a doddle to get a companion piece going out in the garden. That was probably the idea here?

If this 'sister-shit-machine' was robbing the council of opportunities it is very likely that the world would beat a path to David's door to see it and smile a lot. 

Then again David could buy himself a biggish ship and park it off-shore an do his composting on board way out of the jurisdiction of the intellectual midgets at ‘the council’. Quite possibly it too could be an exhibit with an environmental cum scientific cum cultural message for not only ‘the council’ but also the whole world. 

Then again David could even contemplate going off-grid and handle all of MONA’s waste – rather its resources – for himself on-site. 

It has to go without saying that the council and the planning tribunal here are already a laughing stock. Just how far do they really want to go to demonstrate their total stupidity and impending redundancy? 

The trouble here is that this 'council bureaucratic rubbish' keeps on being endlessly, and annoyingly, recycled. 

And, it should also go without saying that there are councils all over Tasmania hat are ripe for the redundancy option. And, there is quite probably one collecting rates for rubbish service very near to you right now.

Launceston Concerned Citizens' Letter To The PM

Dear Prime Minister,

RE: The establishment of a new Northern Tasmania institution of higher education and training

A group of concerned citizens has come together in Launceston Tasmania to express their concerns and to question the merit of proposed changes and relocation of the Northern Tasmanian Newnham campus of the University of Tasmania.

The site for relocation away from the established site at Newnham – Newnham being just a 6/7 minutes driving from Launceston’s centre – is towards the commercial centre of town and located on two flood-plain sites connected by a proposed footbridge across the North Esk River.

These small parcels of land are:
• sites of former railway terminuses and industrial workshops –now owned by Launceston City Council;
• a Federal Government $10.28m ‘Better Cities Site’ a rehabilitated former industrial site project from1994; and
• are sites where there is considerable flood risk.

The city’s ratepayers, indeed Northern Tasmanian residents more generally, have expressed serious concerns that the $4.5M worth of land will be gifted to UTas.

Moreover, the concern is that the whole purpose of the ill-conceived plan is an apparent disguise for the continued ‘dumbing down’ of the university facilities in the north of Tasmania. The imperative seems to be a transfer of upper level courses from Launceston to the UTas Hobart campus.

A proposal by UTas to offer new Associate Degree courses only at the Northern Campus seems to be the basis upon which UTas say an additional 10,000 students will be attracted to the two new sites.

There is no evidence that this number of new students could ever be achieved via this strategy, particularly as the completion of graduate programs would require students to later move to the UTas Hobart campus or indeed interstate.

It is the view of a growing number of northern Tasmanians that the very significant investment in buildings and infrastructure at Newnham must not be abandoned. Furthermore, it is believed that any new facilities that may be required into the future can be located at Newnham where there is 51ha already set aside for educational facilities.

If necessary, we believe that the Newnham campus ought to be divorced from the UTas Hobart administration so as to be allowed to compete on a fair and more economic basis, much like has occurred with Southern Cross University interstate.

Many people believe that the handsome sum being sought by UTas for their relocation project could be better spent by building onto the present infrastructure at Newnham campus and on other more important projects in Northern Tasmania.

Attached is an open letter that we believe illustrates the Northern Tasmanian community’s concerns, and puts some perspective into the provision of tertiary educational facilities and services in this region.

In preparing this open letter, input has been invited from a broad spectrum of the Northern Tasmanian community including past academics of UTas, and other institutions, all of whom are willing to speak up. Furthermore, the group has facilitated the production of an online OPEN LETTER – http://pmopenletter.blogspot.com.au/

Consistent with the precedent establish by Southern Cross University in 1992 we ask that via your good offices you facilitate the establishment of:
• An Advisory Group to consider the implications of a proposal to dismantle the now amalgamated campuses of the University of Tasmania; and In due course
• An Independent Advisory Group to advise ‘government’ on the establishment of a new university/institute in the North of Tasmania; initially as
• As an academically integrated institution incorporating another university/institution with the potential to establish additional sites at other northern Tasmanian sites as required; and
• Federal and State Ministers jointly appointing an Implementation Advisory Panel to advise on the strategies necessary to give effect to the proposed new structures and announce the successor institution to the UTas network.

It also proposed that the new university/institution develop under the sponsorship of a major metropolitan university for, say, the first three years, while operating under its own name and Council and awarding its own degrees in the longer term.

We welcome comment and feedback on this matter.

 Sincerely,

For and on behalf of concerned citizens of the Tamar/Esk region in Tasmania
EMAIL: [LCC C/- LP] LAUNCESTONprojects@bigpond.com 
LINK: http://pmopenletter.blogspot.com.au/