LGAT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Calls for Equal Opportunity Tasmania to investigate workplace health and safety for female councillors
Matt Maloney 

Equal Opportunity Tasmania may be asked to do a workplace review of councils following several resignations by female elected members in recent years. The matter will be discussed at the Local Government Association of Tasmania's annual conference in August. ......................... The general meeting agenda, released this week, includes a motion from the City of Hobart which calls on LGAT to commission Equal Opportunity Tasmania for the review. ......................... The motion stated several female councillors had resigned from their positions in 2019 due to online bullying and harassment. ......................... It pointed to a LGAT survey of elected members that showed of the respondents, 60 per cent said they had experienced bullying and harassment and were not clear on legal protections in terms of workplace safety. ......................... More than 40 local government representatives from 16 councils this year signed a joint statement that expressed concern about workplace culture, particularly for women. ......................... The state government in response to the motion said it considered the review would be most appropriately led by the sector. ......................... "This could include a review into the practice and procedure of councils, including the chamber workplace, existing complaints mechanisms, frameworks and any cultural and structural barriers to reporting alleged discrimination or harassment," it said in its response. ......................... The Burnie City Council has submitted a motion for LGAT to investigate the introduction of propositions or referendums for local government and state elections. ......................... It said the Local Government Act at present provided for elector polls, however, these were non-binding. ......................... "It is of course possible, via legislative amendment, to make the outcome of elector polls mandatory, but this would represent a significant change in current legal arrangements," the motion reads. ......................... "At the state level, there is no standing legal mechanism for conducting referenda. ......................... Those conducted in the past have been done through specific legislation." ......................... The state government said it was unclear what this motion sought to implement and why. ......................... "It would be a significant departure from any established Australian legal or democratic framework for issues-based referenda or other forms of public polling to be binding on councils or the Parliament of Tasmania," it said.The Circular Head Council had proposed a motion that calls for stronger penalties for malicious damage and vandalism to public facilities and infrastructure which has not been supported by the government

COMMENT ... It goes almost without saying that questioning the relevance of Tasmania's Local Govt. Association (LGAT) is the equivalent to flatulence at a dinner party. However, it does need to be said that the organisation is all about self preservation. It does not exist to look after the interests and concerns of ratepayers. It does not exist to facilitate fewer local councils. It does not exist to either advocate for or to ensure that councils – plus alderpeople and councillors – are held more accountable.

Let there be no mistake LGAT is the councillors' peak body and in effect it is there for the benefit of councillors not their constituents – their preservation.

Therefore, the news that the agenda for the LGAT AGM is as it is proof positive that ratepayers interests are not on the agenda. That said, there needs to be mechanisms in place whereby councillors are held to account more effectively.

At the extreme end, councils' constituents need to be able express their lack of confidence in their representatives. If that is by referenda so be it.

Ratepayer need to have the ways and means to effectively, and expediently, hold their representatives to account. If COVID-19 has taught us anything, it is that allowing a circumstance to develop and then act is sheer folly. Going hard, as fast as possible and in the most practical ways possible is what is required.

Tasmania needs fewer councils in order to get better value for their investment in local government. Expecting LGAT to facilitate that objective and realistically is the equivalent to using a faulty handbrake as you career downhill towards a cliff. We need brakes all round and always in good repair.

The bogus equivalences put up by the self interested start by pretending loftily to find no difference between aggressor and victim. Nonetheless, in the end they say that it is the victim of the violence and oppression who is really inciting it and that resolution is beyond control.

If COVID-19 has alerted us to anything it is that the status quo in any guise is not the way forward. Change is no longer optional.

Tandra Vale

FLAG HUMBUG AT THE COUNCIL

The Aboriginal flag will not fly above Launceston town hall or Albert Hall this NAIDOC Week, but the council will vote on a flags policy at next week's council meeting that would allow its addition in the future.

 

The City of Launceston intended to vote on the policy at the July 1 council meeting, but this was delayed due to there being "additional information to clarify with councillors", according to an email from a council officer. ........................ A council spokesperson claimed this vote was not originally intended to align with NAIDOC Week however, which runs from July 4 to 11. ........................ Instead, the policy will be voted on at the July 15 meeting. ........................ The lack of an Aboriginal flag on town hall was again brought to the council's attention via a public question without notice in November, and a commitment was made to develop a flags policy. ........................ Rocelyn Ives, of the Amnesty International Launceston action group, said it was "disappointing" that the issue had not been resolved for eight months. ........................ "It's essential. It's more than just words, it's an action," she said. ........................ "The voice of council is the civic voice for all of Launceston's people. ........................ "And if we're an inclusive community, it's essential we recognise the past history by having the flag there, alongside the national flag." ........................ At the moment, only the national Australian flag and the flag of Launceston flies above town hall. ........................ The flag of Launceston is based on the city's Coat of Arms of 1957, depicting the North and South Esk rivers, kanamaluka/Tamar, tin ingots and Waratah flowers. Picture: Adam Holmes ........................ The council has been carrying out engagement with Heritage Tasmania and the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, with heritage approval required for additional flag poles to be placed on town hall and Albert Hall. ........................ Mayor Albert van Zetten said once the flags policy was approved, there would then be a council planning process to go through. ........................ "As the project needs to progress through both a public planning and engineering process after approval by the council, it would not have been possible for it to coincide with NAIDOC week," he said. ........................ "The Aboriginal flag continues to fly at the city's premier cultural institution, the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, as well as at Home Point on the banks of the kanamaluka/Tamar estuary. The Torres Strait Islander flag is also flown during NAIDOC Week." ........................ In recent years, Break O'Day and Northern Midlands councils have approved the permanent flying of the Aboriginal flag at their offices, while George Town Council has been lobbying nearby councils to place a sculpture and plaque at Batman Bridge commemorating the region's Aboriginal people.

IF there was ever such a blatant case of administrative humbug at the council this is a classic. If this were not serious it would be extraordinarily funny if we think about how big this stuff up is. Excuses, excuses, excuses, anyone would think that the dog has eaten someones homework.

Well here we have a Mayor, Deputy Mayor and a General Manager masquerading as a Chief Executive Officer caught out and sort of claiming that this is trivial in NADOC WEEK.

The apologies on the part of this council needs to be LOUD AND CLEAR and SHE/HE WHO DROPED THE BALL needs to be called out. This has happened before!

Tandra Vale  

Big changes ahead for Tasmanian councils

Graphics by GRAFfix

The government is due to soon release substantially altered laws around the local government sector after a review of the governing act began in 2018. ..................... The review of the Local Government Act produced about 50 proposed changes to laws in 2019. ..................... Voluntary council amalgamations requested by two or more councils will no longer need to be reviewed and approved by the Local Government Board under one proposed change. ..................... The directions paper for the review raised the subject of alternative voting methods and suggested electronic voting should be explored. ..................... The review did not consider council amalgamations or changes to municipal boundaries, or the much maligned code of conduct framework. ..................... The review also did not consider council planning arrangements. ..................... The directions paper suggested scrapping a popular vote for the mayor and deputy mayor positions and having those decisions made around the table by elected representatives of a council. ..................... This was abandoned due to strong opposition to the idea. ..................... The introduction of a candidate nomination fee for local government elections was also abandoned as was a proposal to establish regional councils. ..................... An option to have the candidate elected first in a popularly elected ballot automatically elected as mayor is among the approved proposals. ..................... The review has proposed only Australian citizens should be allowed to vote in council elections and that a person can only vote once in an election. ..................... At the moment, a person that owns both a business and property in a particular municipal area can vote twice. ..................... A draft bill is expected to soon be released for consultation after some months of delay due to COVID-19. 

THE BIG ISSUES DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED .... OR should/could that be YET?.... Tandra

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

How many businesses have chosen to bypass Launceston? Letters to the editor Local News . ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR WHILE there would have been many who felt comments from Alastair Blount highlighting the general state of Launceston's CBD, hoons and graffiti (The Examiner, June 24) to be overly critical, I would argue rightly or wrongly, his comments are correct on every point. ..................... Having lived in Launceston for over 30 years and it is my view various areas of the CBD and surrounding areas are starting to look tired, dirty, and lacking any vibrancy. ..................... It is incredibly disappointing that there seems to be a minority of individuals that have nothing better to do than vandalise or deface the property of others. ..................... In an economical climate that has business margins on a knife's edge, I cannot help but wonder how many prospective business owners bypass Launceston's CBD due to potential antisocial behaviour? \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ..................... .................... Anthony Camino, Youngtown.

WELCOME COUNCILLOR KRISTA PREECE

Krista Preece joined the City of Launceston in June 2021, winning a countback to fill the vacancy left by outgoing Councillor and former Mayor Janie Finlay.

Krista was born in Launceston, the eldest of three children. Her father worked at the local radio station and she spent time working alongside his team. She has also worked in retail before completing her apprenticeship as a hairdresser, working at several well-known businesses across the city during that time. She currently works at the Launceston General Hospital as a ward clerk in the Department of Emergency Medicine and Specialist clinic - a positions she finds extremely rewarding.

Krista is a former Rotary president and current assistant governor. She is also a carer for her elderly aunt. Krista and her husband live in Newstead and they have four children. She is excited at the opportunity to represent the people of Launceston and wants to give back to her "amazing" community.

Krista believes that promoting a positive health message to those in our community is paramount. She is also passionate about providing residents with a reliable and well-connected public transport system, particularly for people who rely on catching a bus for work and medical appointments.

Krista is an avid supporter of the maker movement and the many incredible markets that operate across Launceston. She is looking forward to helping shape the city's future post-COVID and believes she will bring accessibility and relatability to the Council table.

Email: krista.preece@launceston.tas.gov.au

Mobile: 0409 519 429

WHAT IS THE LIKELY TOWN HALL RIP-OFF? As much as ratepayers will tolerate in their estimation!

 

RATEPAYERS NEED TO SPEAK UP 

OF course these current traders within the Cityprom area are delighted because their rates will be reduced at the expense of hapless residential ratepayers and traders outside the Cityprom area who will pay extra rates and have no benefit at all.

No-one seems to want to talk about who pays and who benefits. Other similar places in Australia establish separate promotional bodies funded directly by members in the specific area. In Launceston, this should be undertaken by the Chamber of Commerce, who incidentally are in favour of this current proposal because they are not contributing anything but still expecting to have a seat on the management committee. In a period of record mortgage stress, Launceston's hapless ratepayers need to speak up against this proposal very loudly before it's too late.

Lionel Morrell, Tasmanian Ratepayers Association president. 

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

Facilitated by Tandra Vale

SUBMISSION TO CITY OF LAUNCESTON – CityProm

With reference to Agenda Item 20.4 CityProm Review. 

We request any decision on this matter be deferred until the council has adequately and meaningfully consulted with those that will be forced to bear the economic burden of this initiative. 

We note that the report commissioned from NOA Group headed CONFIDENTIAL (?) is dated 2/9/2020, 8 months ago! .

Given that council and its consultants has taken from late 2019 to carry out its consultation with CityProm and its members, it should at a minimum take the same time and equivalent resources to consult the other ratepayers that would be required to bear the burden of funding CityProm, as is now proposed. 

At the very least, the matter of the proposed residential ratepayer support of the organisation should be subject to a referendum at the forthcoming local government elections. 

 In the meantime, we ask that all elected councillors make clear their position on what is effectively a proposed massive shift in wealth from the residential ratepayers to the CBD businesses and property owners. Their position on the matter should be known before the next local government elections. 

The consultants admit that since 1998, there have been 32 years of “unwilling conscripts” and there has been a complete lack of accountability over this period for the actions and decisions by CityProm. This has been tolerated in spite of a customary requirement for 5-yearly reviews. 

We note that as a promotional organisation within Local Government jurisdictions, CityProm is unique, and in Victoria similar and successful organisations have to have members ‘opt in’. There is little wonder therefore to read of the high level of disengagement with CityProm in Launceston, pointing to the need to only have participation from willing and enthusiastic members, to overcome this. Experience showing where professional service providers have difficulty seeing the benefit of CityProm activities to them will only be magnified and increase this level of disenchantment, should the ratepayer base at large be forced to fund CityProm.

The Victorian model where the vehicle is their Section 86 committees under their Local Government Act, appears interesting and somewhat equitable compared to the present CityProm vehicle and certainly compared to anything proposed for general ratepayer based funding. 

The consultants admit there are tensions about the absence of public good and the arguments of public good of the proposed new measures, are, in our considered opinion, facile. There are many successful retailers and other businesses operating beyond the current CityProm boundaries, that have done very well, despite there often having been a lack of capital expenditure on placemaking by council. 

CityProm at inception, may have had a valid role, but that role is no longer necessary, the world has moved on from 1988 and the access to information of that time. 

Council’s faith on placemaking as a strategy for development fails to acknowledge that no matter how attractive the footpath, if there is no reason to use or access a quality retailer/restaurant/coffee shop or other business, ratepayers will not avail themselves of shiny placemaking baubles. The fact that in recent times even the offices of local politicians have moved out of the CBD, demonstrates they are receptive to their ‘customers’ geographic location and easier access in outer areas. 

The proposed funding model for CityProm will force those who, as a matter of principle and convenience, no longer visit the CBD, to fund activities designed to attract them to the CBD, where is the public good in this approach? 

 The few days since the publication of the agenda does not allow the community to be adequately informed. The most reasonable decision would be to wind up CityProm as per the Officers’ Recommendation OPTION 4: Cease funding and do not replace with any structure - put responsibility for action and accountability for performance back onto the private sector.” 

Alternately, we note that the consultants in their report make 3 recommendation models for funding, in order, C, B, & A. Both C & B removes funding from Rates and A (the least recommended option) is status quo, as existing. 

The perceived CityProm role is clearly one that should be undertaken by the private sector either as an independent group of city businesses or a committee of the Chamber of Commerce, as is normally the practice in most cities like Launceston, that see a need for such activity.

It is not the cynical or the unequivocal that know CityProm to be a waste of ratepayer funds. Over the years the writer has asked the question of all the retailers and businesses where our family makes its discretionary and other expenditure and none of those have ever had a good thing to say about CityProm or its activities. A good reason to avoid the CBD is a CityProm promotion like Crazy Day and other artificial ‘activities’ that CityProm would claim as performance indicators or outcomes. .

The fact that CityProm members themselves are no longer willing to fund it is all the proof necessary to demonstrate it is no longer needed or wanted. 

 “While marketing the City can be left to the private sector, this model tends to fall down because marketing expenditure by a business has an internal focus and does not necessarily promote the public domain.” .

This statement fails to acknowledge the real world. There is no need to market the city. In all great cities it is the effort, creativity and investment of individuals that generates traffic to the individual businesses, often starting with one business and others congregating around it to capitalise on the generated traffic. Witness from example the revival of Campbell Town with the establishment of Zepps well over 20 years ago. Zepps did not arise from any placemaking or marketing by council. The placemaking followed Zepps. .

In contrast to Campbell Town, witness what can only be perceived to be a monumental failure of the newly paved MallS and Quadrant. Is there any evidence that change has lead to even a minor increase in foot traffic or business turnover. The anecdotal evidence is that foot traffic has decreased and Covid is not the convenient excuse for it. It is because there are very few uniquely different retailers left worth visiting. 

Blaming Covid in this report (dated 2 September 2020!) demonstrates how out-of-date the report already is in June 2021, as since then at least anecdotal information says that even businesses that received JobKeeper supports, didn’t actually require support and some ended up with increased business activities. 

 There are many businesses that have thrived in the last year, an excellent example is Harvest Market and another is Bread and Butter. These business activities generate significant foot traffic through hard work and creativity, where else in the central area can you buy fresh bread at 07:00 throughout the week? It does this without any “placemaking” or CityProm marketing.

In conclusion, we again repeat our request that decisions on this initiative, be deferred, and furthermore that at no stage should a broader rate-based funding strategy be implemented. 

 Yours faithfully 

 Public Officer Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

THE CITYPROM MONEY GRAB

 

The debate continues within ratepayers correspondents. The front line distress is that “ it will come from the general rate pool!,” 

It costs approximately $543,366 to operate Cityprom which is currently borne by the 452 businesses that operate in the Launceston CBD. 

It is proposed to transition this cost to the general rate base. It is considered that it would cause too great a financial shock to ratepayers if the Council sought to re-structure the funding of Cityprom in one financial year. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that the re-structure be staged over four financial years, commencing in 2022/2023. 

This would see the CBD businesses receiving a rate REDUCTION over the three year period until the amount is evenly distributed amongst the rate-base. 

Financial modelling has demonstrated that this financial re-structure can be accommodated largely in accordance with the Council's Long Term Financial Plan projected rate increases over the period.

It is disgusting.  There should be a referendum on the matter at the next year's elections.

Ratepayers should ring or email the councillors they voted for and tell them in plain English what they think about this outrageous money grab and then tell them what they think of them.

LAUNCESTON'S RATEPAYER BEING TARGETED FOR A MONEY GRAB

YES, This is nothing more than a massive additional rates grab. 

They are proposing to extend the City Prom boundaries thus:

"While the official boundaries would be decided by a working group, Cityprom's response to the review suggest the boundaries incorporate the Launceston General Hospital, Kings Park and Penny Royal and the Seaport, and out to the Kmart plaza and Racecourse Crescent area." 

The businesses along Charles St have developed and thrived without any City Prom involvement and I doubt any of them want to pay more to have their money spent by someone else, elsewhere . More costs to be added to the bureaucracy as well with a new LCC manager in there somewhere to oversee CityProm. 

• Will CityProm make KMart any more busy? 
• Do they need to pay more rates to get more custom? 

In our opinion, what the businesses should be arguing for is disbanding CityProm altogether. 

Their track record of success in promoting even the current limited boundaries has been an impressive failure, 

What Council should do is hold a plebicite at the next local government elections OR if this council is up for ACCOUNTABILITY let us have a Citizen's Assembly.

IN THE EXAMINER ...  A review of Cityprom could happen in the next six months, after a notice of motion was put forward to the City of Launceston council. ........................ Councillor Rob Soward has put the motion forward asking the general manager to engage with stakeholders, including Cityprom, to review the body and assess whether the needs of the Central Business District are being effectively addressed. ........................ The motion also asks the council to engage with a suitably qualified independent consultant to complete the review, and that it happens within the next six months. ........................ Cr Soward said he believes that it is the council's responsibility to ensure Cityprom is meeting the needs of the CBD. ........................ "According to Cityprom, its purpose is to ensure central Launceston is a vibrant hub for people to live, work, learn, invest, engage, enjoy and experience, through developing and implementing strategies that encourage creativity, entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainable economic growth, establishing Launceston as a great regional city," Cr Soward said. ........................ "Given the dramatic changes, which we have, and continue to experience throughout the Launceston CBD, it is difficult for any such organisations to stay contemporary and relevant." ........................ Cr Soward said it was vital that such organisations engage in periodic review to ensure the best interest for the CBD were being addressed, and said an independent review is what is needed. He said it is not best practise for any organisation to review themselves. ........................ Businesses in the CBD pay a levee, which is collected by the council, to be part of Cityprom. The levee is worth more than half a million dollars. ........................ General manager Michael Stretton said Cr Soward's motion is clear and the justifications all make sense. ........................ The proposed review would cost between $20,000 to $25,000 and budget amendments would have to be made if the council vote to approve the motion. ........................ The meeting will be held on Thursday at 1pm at the Town Hall.

A New Councillor for Launceston

TO READ MORE GO TO

https://ktf7250.blogspot.com/2021/06/new-blood-on-launcestons-council.html

 

LOCAL GOVT TOSH

The "Column inches" stories like this win is an indictment on local governance's ability to actually be useful and serve its constituents. 

For the most part council managements have taken any real decision making away from the elected representatives. Given the way so many councillors/aldermen behave it is possible to see some wisdom in that.

However, on the evidence, far too many 'officers', mainly those in the upper ranks, are about as ill equipped for their responsibilities as the elected reps. The education requirements and domain knowledge required, it seems, is such that local government is all too often left with the dross.

All too often we get a mix of 'past-use-by-date' , 'never-wasers' , 'chancers' ,'intellectually ill equipped' and 'wanabes' grappling with little problems and turning them into monumental issues that finish up costing 'ratepayers' zillions and with nowhere to go.

And the plethora of councils in Tasmania, that situation only exacerbates the folly of conducting the charade that is local government in Tasmania in 2021.

The sooner it is recognised the local government in Tasmania is more than broken and acknowledge that it is dysfunctional, non-performing and way too expensive, the better.

G B Shaw told us long, long ago that "progress is impossible without change; and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." 

Dr Luther Blissett               t

President Neoism Tasmania

Bullying’ claims as stoush over Richmond’s Pooseum signage heats up 

The owner of Richmond’s Pooseum has levelled accusations of “bullying and discriminating behaviour” at the council, amid a stunning escalation in the battle over the business’s sign. 

Cameron Whiteley, Mercury Subscriber only | May 23, 2021 

Stink over Richmond’s Pooseum signage set to linger Driving force behind first dementia village moves on THE owner of a Richmond museum dedicated to dung has made a formal complaint to the Tasmanian Integrity Commission in the latest chapter of an ongoing saga with the council over a sign in front of her business. 

 Pooseum owner Karin Koch has claimed she is the victim of “bullying and discriminating behaviour” in a drawn-out disagreement with Clarence City Council. The stoush has been ongoing since 2019, which was brought about after Ms Koch did not secure the required planning permit for the sign. Ms Koch opened the Pooseum science museum on Bridge St in 2018 and in December 2019 the council enforced the sign’s removal on grounds relating to streetscape and cultural heritage of the town. Ms Koch was facing a bill of about $1100 to lodge a retrospective application, but more than 1600 people have signed an online petition calling for the original sign to be approved by council and reinstated. ............................... In her letter to the Integrity Commission, Ms Koch said she believed the matter could have been solved quickly and without public attention. “Instead, the council ... has engaged in ongoing bullying and discriminating behaviour to enforce the removal of the sign, because, as a council member told me in a face-to-face meeting, they ‘don’t like it’,’’ she wrote. Ms Koch wrote that there were two aspects to the disagreement — the size of the sign, and the payment of the fee. Following a long period of unsuccessful negotiation, council has issued a notice of intention to enforce, requiring Ms Koch to either obtain a permit for the signage or remove it. ...............................   Council general manager Ian Nelson said the subject of the signage was not the problem, but rather the lack of a completed development application being submitted to council. ............................... “Richmond is a vital heritage and tourist destination for the City of Clarence, and it is important that the heritage significance of the area is conserved,” he said. “We’re obligated by law to enforce the planning scheme, we can’t pick and choose how and when to do it, and it is there to protect this important historical precinct for future generations.” ............................... Alderman Luke Emunds, who moved a motion at a council meeting in March to waive discretionary fees for the application and instead charge the regular price, said the latest developments were concerning. ............................... “This could have been avoided had the council passed my motion, which would have satisfied all parties,” he said. “Instead, this saga continues to drag on.” ............................... Mr Nelson said he hoped the latest developments would lead to an “amicable resolution”.

CAN DILETTANTISM AND PHILISTINES DELIVER THE GOODS IN LAUNCESTON ?

The Ratepayers' Association took the time and effort to make a submission to Council on this agenda item and listening to the cursory regard the item received around the table, the association's concerns and aspirations were summarily dismissed. The association's concern is to ensure that when Council seeks advice, it is 'expert advice' and those providing it should in fact be 'experts' – not sycophantic dilettantes.

Under the provisions of SECTION 65 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) a general manager must ensure that any advice, information or recommendation 'given to the council or a council committee is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation'. 

The PURPOSE of this provision is to protect ratepayers from flawed advice provided by sycophantic dilettantes and other conflicted advisers.

With this in mind, and in the cut and thrust of things, the age old contention to do with the 'value of culture' is ever likely pop up and expose every machination of purified ignorance, unadulterated philistinism and simple unenlightenment. There is no surprises at all when this is witnessed as self deemed expertise just doesn't cut it.

We do need to consider living in a city without a 'cultural landscape' and we need to do so very carefully.

The Australia Council for the Arts reports regularly on incomes in that 'euphemistic cultural sector' and their reporting shows that artists – cultural producers – earned a gross income in the order of $48K PA on average. That is well below the average income of $77K PA but above the poverty line of $22K – roughly the aged pension. So any notion that people in the 'cultural sector' are on easy street and can afford to give freely of their time, resources and expertise is little more than 'arrogant tosh' and can easy be put to one side. Clearly, when they are expected to give freely of their 'professional all' way too much is expected.    CLICK HERE FOR A REFERENCE ... AND FOR ANOTHER CLICK HERE

Typically, people in the cultural sector need to supplement their income from other jobs – sometime multiple jobs. For instance, the story of a 29-year-old being forced to take a full-time receptionist job to make ends meet and at the same time maintain their 'practice' is all too common. Its not because she is a 'bad artist', it is actually because of the 'state of the market' in the cultural sector, that is, 

• the very one that is populated with people that Council assumes has the wherewithal to donate their time, their resources and their expertise to bureaucrats who are in receipt of exceptional salaries in order that the GM can satisfy SECTION 65 of the Act.

Cr. Dawkins when speaking to the agenda item lauded the initiative albeit basically dismissing the concept that 'sport' might in reality be a component of the city's 'cultural reality'. It is a contribution to the 'public discourse' that is worth listening to.

Cr. Dawkins even footnoted her comment by alerting people to the attention sport gets in the press and presumably she was making the point that sport gets enough. Also, somewhat curiously she  ignored:

• Aboriginal cultural cultural realities; and 
• The possibility of religion being a components; 

of the city's cultural reality. Likewise, she, and other speakers, totally ignored the ratepayers' submission and presumably because no 'real value' is attributed to it and the potential contribution every component, multi-dimensional components, of the city's current cultural realities.

However, C. McKenzie when he spoke to the motion was a little more elastic in what might be considered as a component of the city's cultural landscape. Interestingly he did so without naming any component maybe in case he made a mistake of some kind.

The fact that the ratepayers submission was advocating that 'committee members' drawn from the community be compensated for their time, expertise, experience and more still, is was not a concept they wish to consider. Setting a standard of that kind might be the thin edge of the wedge and ultimately unwelcome comparisons might get to be made. 

Having a 'cultural strategy' at all reeks of totalitarianism of the kind that came to be in Europe in the mid 20th Century. Assuming that 'culture' is mono-dimensional and/or that there is any such thing as a 'cultural oneness' runs counter to people's experience of their reality. Dumbing 'culture' down comes with all kinds of complexity and warnings and there should be no room whatsoever for dilettantism.

Manfred Rommel prominent German and influential municipal politician speaking of Adolf Hitler said "of course, Hitler was a dilettante, but he was a completely amoral person. Yes, he had no morals at all" In his words, these words, there is something to ponder upon even the 21st Century  – even in Launceston.

Dr Tandra Vale

MONEY LINK – http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com/2021/04/how-much-do-tasmanian-councils-spend-on.html

City of Launceston council ... The City of Launceston council has spent $2,743,946 on consultants in the past five financial years. It spent: In 2015-16: $484,051 In 2016-17: $496,813 In 2017-18: $768,316 In 2018-19: $315,066 In 2019-20: $679,700 The information was released at the council's March 11 meeting after The Examiner had asked repeatedly for the information.  ............................ The council's chief executive officer Michael Stretton said it developed the consultancy register due to increasing public interest.  ............................ "The council has decided to report the consultancy register to the public in the interests of achieving greater transparency and clarity in respect to the level of expenditure on consultants each year," he said. ............................ "The register identified that the council spent between 0.28 per cent and 0.71 per cent of its total annual expenditure on consultancies in the last five years."

THE PATERSON STREET CARPARK WEST ISSUE

 

ABC News posted on 4 Nov 2020 that the “Foundry school at centre of $90M Launceston Creative precinct evicted for unpaid rent”.

Information obtained by ABC shows Foundry is $83,614 behind on its rental payments for its Cameron Street facility – and has not made any payments for more than seven months.

• Foundry director Chris Billing also sole director of Creative Property Holdings, the company behind the precinct. The project also includes a bus exchange.

• Earlier this year the ABC REVEALED Foundry staff had not paid staff, and had not properly paid superannuation for several years….”

•  Foundry no longer operates from staffed premises in Launceston. 

Question – Caveat ? 

In February 2021, a caveat was placed on the Title to 41-43 Paterson Street Launceston (Paterson Central Carpark, owned by Car Parks Super Pty Ltd) by solicitors for Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd. The placement of this caveat, was not notified to Carparks Super Pty Ltd; and the caveat remains “unregistered” according to Tasmanian Lands Titles Office, because of an ‘administrative matter’, meaning it presently has no jurisdiction in dealings concerning the Title (vol. 147031 fol. 1). 

Question – Legal battle ? – No Contract ! 

There is dispute as to whether the parties actually entered into a contract. Tasmanian law prescribes that all agreements for the sale of real estate (vacant land or developed land) must be in writing and signed by all parties. None of this happened. 

There is no agreement in writing signed by all parties. No contract was exchanged. No contract was settled. 

On 19 February 2021 solicitors for Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 637 144 542 as trustee for the Creative Property Holdings Unit Trust (Sole Director Christopher Billing and Applicant) filed a Statement of Claim in the Federal Court of Australia. 

First Respondent, Carparks Super Pty Ltd ACN 607 566 094 as trustee for the Allen Family Superannuation Fund (owner of the property); And Second Respondent City of Launceston Council. 

The Applicant claims that on 20 November 2020, the First Respondent offered to sell the property to the Applicant. It has been revealed that the City of Launceston Council had apparently agreed to be guarantor for Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd to purchase the property, and had advanced a significant sum as a deposit for Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd. Solicitors for Council withdrew from the contract and ceased to be guarantor, demanding the return of the deposit it had advanced. 

The legal proceeding is being vigorously defended by solicitors for Carparks Super Pty Ltd. 

Minister Fergusson says the State is not party to this contract, but Question – Where is the money coming from so far ? 

City of Launceston Council controversially sought $10M from the Commonwealth’s Drought Relief Fund. 

Tasmanian Government has advanced $6M to City of Launceston Council on an interest free basis, and then apparently a further $6M on the same basis, all to be forwarded on by CoL Council to the developer (Chris Billing’s Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd) to purchase the Paterson Street Central Carpark property. 

The development site includes the former 2 Birchall’s retail properties fronting Brisbane Street Mall, currently owned by CoL Council. 

Question – So what has been the involvement of State Government, and why is City of Launceston Council actively working to prejudice the proper rights of Carparks Super Pty Ltd to conduct its much-valued car park business at 41-43 Paterson Street ? 

Minister Fergusson says through the office of the State Co-ordinator-General [John Perry] The State “has been engaging with Launceston City Council, Creative Property Holdings and their financiers in relation to the Creative Precinct Proposal, including a planned bus terminal”. Interestingly, State Co-ordinator General John Perry has not engaged with the owners of the carpark property, Carparks Super Pty Ltd., but seems to have been a pivotal party in all other regards.(Interestingly, Metro, for whom the proposed bus interchange is to benefit, is a Government Business Enterprise, albeit independent and able to act independently). 

There is no responsibility by the CoL Council to provide or expend ratepayers funds on providing bus facilities for a State Government Business Enterprise. 

Initially, The SC-G proposed that the State be a partner in the development proposal, however in due course, the Government decided not to be directly involved Once this information was conveyed to CoL Council, the SC-G then apparently acted to approach a Sydney-based financier, BrickTop to finance the development for Chris Billing’s “group”, who was at that point yet to form Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd. 

The Creative Precinct proposal has been publicly-stated to be estimated at $90M, a very large sum to be borrowed for a Launceston development. For a $90M development to prosper, a current property investment return of around 6% (rent $5.4M) is a big ask in Launceston when the vacancy level in the Central Area is already very high.

Almost 2 years ago now, City of Launceston Council purchased the Birchall’s retail properties for $8.8M. The shops remain boarded up although occupying a prime Mall frontage and next door to Myer. 

Council’s Expression of Interest process has spectacularly failed, and NOTHING has been forthcoming. 

Launceston ratepayers are funding this expense, notwithstanding the significant loss of rates income previously received from this valuable retail property. 

There is no evidence that the relocation of buses from St John Street to off-street in Paterson Street, will have any advantage for the rescue of the financial viability of the City, or that the loss of the present car park will not be detrimental.

CAR PARK EXPENDITURE ... What is it up to now?

It is said that already $1Million has already been spent and there is some speculation that overall it could be $2Million. Who knows?

Apparently the Councillors  do not know. 

WHO DOES KNOW?

Whatever  has been spent thus far is RATEPAYERS MONEY and ratepayers should be able to find out what is being spent in their name.

Interesting consideration regarding Town Hall money management ... For every $1Million lost, overspent, spent without an outcome, is roughly THREE YEARS SALARY for the GM or known at Town Hall the the CEO. 

Ratepayers need to be concerned! 

 

Why is Council Pushing a $90 Million Carpark Development NOW?

 

DEVELOPMENT?

An artist's impression of the Launceston Creative Precinct.

Site still not secured for $90m Creative Precinct, more than 10 months after it was announced 

Isobel Cootes

The old Birchall car park has not been purchased more than 10 months after the $90 million Launceston Creative Precinct was announced for the site, with a legal battle still ongoing to secure it. .................................. A caveat [Why & what for?] was placed on the property in February due to a legal battle underway between the two companies, with developer Creative Holdings yet to strike a deal with Car Parks Super, the owner of the old Birchalls car park at 41-43 Paterson Street. [Is the City of Launceston involved? If so how?].................................. The City of Launceston council is attached [How and why?] to the creative precinct via its proposal to relocate the St John Street bus interchange, and to redevelop the Birchalls building, which it purchased last year for $8.8 million. [Why was it purchase and for what purpose?] .................................. The council could compulsory acquire the site but mayor Albert van Zetten did not answer if it would or had plans to. [When will he or Council tell ratepayers what and why here?].................................. "Acquisition of the property is ongoing through a legal process. The council is currently awaiting the outcome of this process," he said. [What process and who are the parties involved] .................................. "The council has legal agreements with this company [Which company?] to facilitate the construction of a bus interchange on the site, post-acquisition." [What is holding this up? Is it being held up?]  .................................. The bus interchange must be completed by the end of 2022 as a condition of the council receiving a $10 million drought grant under the Building Better Regions Fund. [Is this a realistic expectation?] The council also received a $6 million no interest loan from the state government for the project. .................................. The state government could also compulsory acquire the site but State Growth Minister Michael Ferguson did not answer if it would intervene. [Why would the State Govt get involved?] .................................. "The government is currently in caretaker mode and understands the property remains subject to a contract for sale between Car Parks Super and Creative Property Holdings. The state is not a party to this contract," he said. [When was any of this deliberated upon in open council? Are the 'workshops' council holds behind closed doors either legal or ethical?] .................................. "Through the Office of the Coordinator-General we have continued to engage with the Launceston city council, Creative Property Holdings and their financiers in relation to the Creative Precinct proposal, including a planned bus terminal. "We remain enthusiastic of the potential of the proposal to transform Launceston and Northern Tasmania." [Why is this land actually needed for a bus interchange given the range of design and planning alternatives available?]

FOR CLARITY: 

The land being discussed here is NOT Birchalls Carpark and it is NOT a component of the acquisition of Birchalls property. 

It is in fact the "Parterson Central Car Park" and it has been known as that for 20 years.

APRIL 28 WHAT IS HOPED FOR POST STATE ELECTION

City of Launceston council

The new governance structure and $209m redevelopment of University of Tasmania Stadium [Can Launceston ratepayers ACTUALLY afford this and is it on their priority list?] heads the City of Launceston council's funding priorities, alongside a $2.5m upgrade of the Princess Theatre, $1m in new drainage and lighting for the Birch Avenue soccer ground, $3m for CBD traffic flow improvements and $3.1m upgrades to the NTCA Ground. [Where is the bus interchange needed and who asked the community and when?]

Launceston acting mayor Danny Gibson said the council had a clear line of sight over which projects it believed were key for the community for some time. [REALLY?]

"This council's priority projects will realise genuine benefits to a large number of people in our community - from sporting clubs, those in our arts and cultural sectors and motorists who frequent the CBD," he said. [REALLY?]

"And if they are picked up by the parties during this election campaign, they will also help boost our local economy significantly, not just in the short term but over coming years as well." [REALLY?]

Tandra Vale April 29