Monday, November 25, 2019

QVMAG ANNUAL REPORT




While you are there check this stuff out:

(PDF, 27KB)

Governance Charter
The Museum Governance Advisory Board (MGAB) works with the City of Launceston and community to advance the aims of QVMAG. 
Read the MGAB Charter here(PDF, 51KB).
This is worth reading oif you are interested in accountability and transparency

Friday, November 22, 2019

LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST GO



-->
In Tasmania, our 29 councils represent about $2Bn of misspent monies. Elected reps defend their positions so as they attend the bank and withdraw their ill-gotten gains. Most/many are little more than lead-swingers of the highest order.

As for the bureaucrats, they are increasingly unaccountable and are enabled to operate in the dark. Moreover, typically they lack the expertise they claim for themselves while they are paid to- much to do too little.


FROM THE DAILY NEWS

“So there I was, driving down one of the busier stretches of bitumen in my neck of the woods, dodging potholes that grow larger by the day, swerving to avoid piles of uncollected rubbish, steering through large puddles of water because the drains have been clogged for months and giving a wide berth to an unregistered dog weaving its way through the traffic, when I was suddenly distracted by a new roadside sign.

Couldn’t miss it, actually. It was one of those big-screen digital displays that often warn you to slow down because of serious problems ahead.

But this was a sign from my local council carrying a much more important community message.

This council, it read, “SAYS NO TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE”.

It was at that moment that I had a rare epiphany. It’s time to get rid of local government.

We pay rates to our local councils so they can fix the potholes, collect the rubbish, clean the drains and catch unregistered dogs roaming the streets.

We don’t pay them rates so they can act like a Miss Universe contestant whose ambition in life is to foster world peace while humming a couple of bars of Kum-Bah-Yah.

No one disputes the sad fact that Australia is surely the most over-governed country in the world.

Not only that, but we are increasingly governed by collectives of virtue-signallers – people who have the need to loudly proclaim their moral values and preach them incessantly until everyone else understands just how morally superior they are.

And so we have a succession of federal and state governments spending hundreds of millions of our dollars every year on advertising crusades – sorry, “public safety awareness campaigns” – imploring us to drink wisely, eat healthily, walk regularly and drive safely.

Sure, you can argue some of those campaigns might have raised awareness about important issues.

Now I think about it, I’m certainly seeing fewer fat people driving drunk on the wrong side of the road while eating salt-laden hamburgers and washing them down with full-strength Coke.

But it’s a bit rich when local government bodies – always crying poor to justify regular rate hikes – decide it is their turn to make public motherhood statements.

Of course domestic violence is an enormous problem facing this country.

No one disputes its hideous impact on victims, or that we need a united approach to stamping it out that will involve an offensive on the cultural, gender and psychological fronts.

A lame sign on the side of a road already cluttered with too many hoardings isn’t just simplistic.

It demeans a topic that demands depth and courage, not flippancy.

But then, that is the standard we have come to expect from many of our local councillors.

All of you surely know by now that this is also the time of the year when the nation plays its annual game of “Which inner-city council of hand-wringing virtue signallers will try and ban/shift/rename Australia Day?”

In Melbourne, the City of Port Phillip has passed a motion to mark Australia Day with a “morning of mourning” before going ahead with an Indigenous welcome and citizenship ceremonies.

In Sydney, the Inner West Council has voted to scrap its Australia Day celebrations, including planned fireworks and a “Citizen of the Year” presentation.

Again, Australia Day is a fraught issue for many indigenous and non-indigenous Australians who quite justifiably resent its presence as a day of national celebration.

It’s a view that all of us should take into consideration.

But it’s not the sort of topic with which our thousands of trumped-up, power-lusting local government representatives should be concerning themselves.

The timing and tone of Australia Day – and even more importantly, a greater appreciation of the generational trauma experienced by the First People of this country since settlement – is a national issue that should be debated and recognised by all Australians.

Potholes. Bins. Footpaths. Those are the priorities for our councillors across the more than 500 – yes, 500 – “cities” and “shires” that make up our third tier of government.

When they finally achieve some skill in that area – and there is no sign yet of any proficiency gains despite more than a century of Federation – then perhaps our councillors could bestow their incredible insights and powers of reasoning on a subject quite close to the hearts of all ratepayers and concerned citizens.

Their task? To examine the three bloated layers of government in this country.

To tally up the billions of dollars it costs us because of all the duplication and bureaucratic waste.

To understand that a great nation is the sum of its people, not those who govern them.

Given their confidence in their intellectual powers and ability to reason, it shouldn’t take them long to conclude that the best motion they could ever pass would be to vote themselves out of existence.

And that, surely, would be a declaration worthy of any roadside sign.

Garry Linnell was director of News and Current Affairs for the Nine network in the mid-2000s. He has also been editorial director for Fairfax and is a former editor of The Daily Telegraph and The Bulletin magazine

Friday, November 1, 2019

THE NATIVES ARE GETTING RESTLESS


COMMENT
It is refreshing to start to see serious investigation of Launceston Council's modus operandi. It is way past time that it might be and quite probably 'The Examiner' is looking to increase its readership.

Rumour had it that 'council management' had a 'cosy relationship with the paper' and when anyone looks at council's budget there is an extraordinary commitment to marketing/propaganda. Ponder that!

Not so very long ago an Examiner journalist was 'disappeared' basically for writing an "unfriendly article". If you are pulling the strings one needs this sort of thing to keep the underlings in line.

Now that there are some signs that The Examiner has hit the refresh button ratepayers need to be sending in their Letters to the Editor. Let it not be said that what is published is a refl;ection of the community’s lack of concern.

While we are here, ratepayer might want to pay close attention to who are not turning up to meetings but are nonetheless attending their bank to collect what some regard as ‘pocket money’.  Also try and phone a councillor to see where that gets you and report in. Over to you on this one!

TWO LETTER FROM TODAY'S PAPER

City of Launceston

IT WAS astounding to read (The Examiner, October 26) Launceston's council being quizzed regarding its extraordinary expenditure on external experts.
Nonetheless, the list of external consultants is much larger than is being indicated.
What was less surprising was the implausible hollow bureaucratic rhetoric offered by the City of Launceston general manager Michael Stretton in response to the criticism being aimed squarely at the council.
There is something in the order of $80,000 plus per week tucked away in various council budget allocations ready to fund what now looks like secret discretionary spending. If it appears as if this expenditure is irregular and there is an arrogant disregard for transparency.
Ratepayers have taken their concerns to the Ombudsman, the Minister, the Director of Local Government and indeed the Auditor General That this goes without a mention, it must tell us something. Albeit late in the day, the press' new-found will to expose bureaucratic secrecy is welcomed by ratepayers and others.
Ray Norman, Launceston.

Consultants Data

DOES it not surprise anybody else that the City of Launceston council does not record data from external consultants? It doesn't surprise me. The data would possibly show how or what to do properly but does not fit the thoughts and the agenda of the managers or councillors. I would also like to know how and who their "tender for work invitations" is finalised and sent to.
City of Launceston general manager Michael Stretton says it is a $110 million business. Much more than this is tendered out and spent. A business of this size would usually have external auditors look at every aspect of a business. Does the council have this process in place each year? The amount of ratepayer funds spent on malls, playgrounds, sports fields and handouts to all and sundry for concerts, sporting events etc needs to be reined in.
How many millions have been spent on consultants for malls, sewer system, Tamar River etc? It's enough to put a tear in one's eye, not only a waste of other people's money but also the lack of record-keeping, that can be checked by authorities and others outside the council.
One thing I can count on with the council is higher rates and never ceases to amaze me on how much and on what projects large amounts of funding (money) seems to be given away willfully without consultation with the people who pay their wages.
Steve Rogers, South Launceston.