Saturday, October 20, 2018

PLANNING NEWS


Dear PMAT Supporter,

 In what is likely to be the biggest survey of candidates in the local government elections, the Planning Matters Alliance Tasmania (PMAT) has today revealed strong candidate sentiment for local government planning controls that protect local character, sunlight and privacy for our homes and facilitate public involvement in planning decisions in national parks and reserves. .

PMAT sought to survey all 481 candidates in the council elections, reaching 407 candidates, 107 of whom completed and returned their responses to questions. It asked the following three questions and the individual responses to these questions are now available on PMAT’s website HERE.  The results table is presented by Council and then by candidate in alphabetical order.

1. Do you believe that Councils should have greater capacity to protect local character and amenity and places important to local communities? 

2. Do you believe that planning rules should protect a neighbour's right to sunshine and privacy in their own home and garden? 

3. Do you believe that major tourist developments proposed for national parks (and other reserves) should be discretionary i.e. the development proposal is released for public comment and the council can either approve or refuse it? 

Please see attached Media Release from today’s press conference which we held on the steps of the Hobart City Council. Two TV networks turned up, so please watch the news tonight. 

Please forward this email to your members and supporters and share the survey results via our Facebook page here and via our website here and encourage all enrolled voters to exercise their democratic right and empower themselves and their councilors by participating in this process. 

With kind regards,

Sophie
Sophie Underwood State Coordinator - PMAT M: 0407 501 999

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

VOTE CAREFULLY, VOTE FOR CHANGE


CONTEXT: If 'change' is what you are voting for this is recommended reading given the vagaries of the Tasmanian electoral system. A change of personnel is all we'll get at this election but it will be a step along the way if real change is to eventually happen and in a meaningful way.
The Local Govt. model in Tasmania is well and truly broken. Much of this is down to our elected representatives disinclination to be accountable and transparent – not to mention their non-performance in so many instances.
It appears as if the only way Local Govt's dysfunctionalism can be addressed is incrementally.
So, if change is on your agenda take very good care and Dr Kevin Bonham's advice may well be helpful.

Council Voting - Please Be Careful!
Dr Kevin Bonham
I've already made this point in my Hobart guide but I thought I should make it prominently in a separate post to cover all councils. Please feel very free to share and spread widely.
A scourge of Tasmanian council elections is the high rate of informal voting. Informal votes are votes that are returned but cannot be counted as they are not valid votes. The main reason the informal voting rate is high is that voters make mistakes and the rules concerning this are stupid. The reason the rules are stupid is that governments have failed to fix them. The previous Labor/Greens government ignored warnings that bringing in all-in all-out elections would cause a high informal voting rate under the current system. The current Liberal government has so far done nothing to fix it. The Local Government Act needs to be reformed to provide savings provisions for voters who make honest mistakes.
When you get your ballot papers in the mail, the ballot paper for Councillors will have an instruction at the top saying "Number the boxes from 1 to [some number] in order of your choice". At the bottom it says "Number at least [some other number] boxes to make your vote count". The first number is the number of candidates, the second is the number to be elected.
What the instructions don't tell you is that if you make a mistake before you get to that second (minimum) number, your vote won't be counted - at all!
So for instance, Hobart is electing 12 councillors. You can number up to 36 boxes but for your vote to count you need to at least number the boxes 1 to 12 once and once only. If you include any of those numbers more than once, your vote is invalid and will not count at all. If you skip any of those numbers, your vote is invalid and will not count at all. So for instance, if you put two number 8s but no number 9 on a Hobart councillor paper, that's it, your vote will not be valid. Even had you made just one of these two mistakes, your vote would not count. I personally saw huge piles of ballot papers rejected for these sorts of reasons in 2014. 
Especially, do not think "oh I really can't find 12 candidates, I'll just pick 11, surely that's good enough?" It isn't. It's the same as posting in a blank ballot.
If you make a mistake involving doubling or omitting numbers after the minimum number, that's not such a big deal. Don't let that put you off numbering as many boxes as you want to. A mistake after the minimum number just means that if your vote gets to the point where you made the mistake (which depending on your preference ordering might not happen anyway) then at that point your vote will exhaust from the system. It may be that much of your vote's value has been used up helping people get elected by that stage anyway.
It's especially easy to omit or double numbers if you like voting from the bottom up, which lots of us do.
One way to avoid these sorts of errors is to practice voting on a separate sheet of paper (or spreadsheet) first. Once you have an order you can check it by listing the numbers from 1 to the number of candidates on another piece of paper, and going through your practice vote from the top, crossing off each number as it appears. If you go to cross off a number and find you've already crossed it off, that probably means you've doubled up somewhere. If a number doesn't get crossed off, look for that number and see if you've missed it.
If you make a mistake on your actual ballot paper, and you're using a pen, you can correct it by crossing the incorrect number out and writing the correct one. (Pencil is much easier, since you can just erase it, and there's no reason not to use pencil.) But if you do this make sure it is very clear what your actual voting order is.
As to the question of numbering all of the boxes vs only some of them - assuming you have time to consider it - I almost always number all of the boxes. The important thing to remember if there are several candidates you don't like, is that how you rank the candidates at the bottom of the list will never help any of them beat candidates who you ranked higher - but it may help the candidate you see as the lesser evil defeat one you really can't stand. If you have ranked a candidate 30th out of 36, your vote cannot reach them or help them until everyone you ranked 1 to 29 has been elected or eliminated. However, it might then help them beat those you have ranked 31 to 36.


Tasmanian election analyst Dr Kevin Bonham is known for his commentary on elections but has other interests … https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/5247327/tasmanian-election-analyst-dr-kevin-bonham-talks-about-elections-snails-and-chess/

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

COMPARE AND CONTRAST: Truth telling in Local Govt.


TWO LETTERS: Click here to go to source

Unhealthy vision 
A NEW and competent council would do wonders for Launceston. My grouch seems to be fairly general in the municipality, we have a council that has had problems with coming to terms with the dire needs of Launceston and I believe their failings today rendered their term of office as not only disappointing, but a term of unnecessary money spending with little or no gain to the ratepayers of the city. 

Concerns, too, that city development appears to have been taken from council control and an unhealthy vision is appearing that does not sit too well with many citizens and questions are becoming stronger as to just where is all the mainland investment money is flowing from and before they depart a little public enlightenment as to how the present association could continue to be of benefit to Launceston? 

Geoff Smedley, Trevallyn.

Difference in councils 
WHAT a marked difference between the Launceston City Council and West Tamar Council – the LCC are money grabbers and the WTC are not. 

Example: Paid rates for a property in the Launceston area in full September 21, but because the first installment was due August 31 was charged a 3 per cent penalty plus interest of $12. 

Did the same for my property in Riverside, which was due the same time, not only wasn’t I charged a fee, but received a $32.81 discount for paying by the September 28

Why would councils want to merge with Launceston? They spend money like its water and then charge everyone for their extravagance there are many examples like the flood levy and the $400,000 spent putting a cycle lane on Westbury Road. 

Rob Kenna, Riverside.

EDITORS NOTE 

LITTLE WONDER at election time that the punters might be out doing a little compare and contrast thingo along with a spot of truth telling. Yet in the case of West Tamar it is the 'best council in Tasmania' and we know this because one councillor keeps on telling Launcestonians that it is so. 

He must be right because Launceston's Mayor lives there with him and arguably he can avoid the uncontainable rate rises ahead flowing from the decision making in the dark he countenances. 

Therefore, when Launceston's Mayor votes in his 'home' municipality he can vote for the candidates declaring that they are 'the best council' without doing a dot where here gets paid his 'brass'. Weird isn't it?

Everything is done out in the open at West Tamar and ratepayers rank highly in the councillors' minds whereas over in Launceston its council has real trouble coming to terms with people's real needs. They had a clever 'fly-in-fly-out' GM who essentially left them in 'debt hole' and now they are being asked to vote for more of the same. Why would you trust them with 'your' lunch money?

BEFORE YOU VOTE THINK LONG AND HARD AND MOST OF ALL SCRUTINIZE THE RHETORIC REALLY CLOSELY.