HISTORY AND HERITAGE AT RISK APPARENTLY

 

ALSO GLEANED

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

WHAT ARE THE POLITICIANS' AND PUBLIC SERVANTS' ACTUAL PRIORITIES?

MEDIA RELEASE Monday 7th November 2022

From Strike It Out Inc Tasmania

What funding amount is allocated for emergency accommodation here in Tasmania? 

Why has State and Local Government not planned for the increase of people becoming homeless and increasing availability of infrastructure to meet the basic human rights of the people? 

The original nurses accommodation block situated behind the Charles Hotel in Launceston, owned by the Department of Health. It would be in the public interest to redevelop this site for the homeless rather than sometime in the future be sold to a private developer. 

An investment of tax payers money for the future health and well-being of our less fortunate community members is now critical. 

The City of Launceston has indicated that here no availability of green spaces, halls or buildings in the Launceston municipality to set up a safe space for people who have no choice but to sleep rough. 

Why is it that antisocial behaviour is on the increase and one’s allowed to continue to assault, abuse, destruct, burn tents, steal from our most vulnerable making it unsafe to be homeless. This results in our most vulnerable being open to continual fear, stress and unable to sleep of a night - antisocial behaviour is coming from people who are not homeless. 

The question must be asked as to who is responsible for meeting the basic human rights of our community members and it is disappointing when our elected members remain silent. 

Why when I state to the Media, I am told that “I am pissing people off and no one will work with me”. This comes from the mouth of someone who is paid by the rate payers and meant to be working with the best interests of the community? 

The broken record continues and I only want to advocate for a positive successful future ensuring that we can work together, plan and meet the basic human rights for all the community members here in Tasmania.

DO LAUNCESTON'S RATEPAYERS KNOW THAT THEY ARE INVESTORS IN A DEVELOPMENT SLUSH FUND THAT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DELIVER A DIVIDEND

 

If you take coffee in Launceston's Brisbane Street Mall you are bound to glean all kinds of snippets of information. A lot of it, well some of it, apparently comes via a 'leakage' from Town Hall. Machiavellian or not  there are times when taking coffee in the Brisbane Street Mall is more illuminating than reading The Examiner.

It has been speculated upon for some time but it has always been somewhat puzzling as to why the City of Launceston would want to purchase a building in the Mall and abandon it for years. Just how much revenue has Council forgone by doing this and in the end who pays? It is also mystifying as to why the city was prepared to pay well above the odds for a property no other investor was prepared to buy – reportedly for $8Mil – and develop/repurpose the site. 

Now the word 'on the street' is that Council is in the throws of 'off loading' the property for $6Mill and to an investor on behalf of another who was the initiator(?) of legal proceeding related to an adjoining property. All fiscal cloak and dagger stuff when Local Governance should be open, transparent and accountable. Why is this so!

To charactorise all this as playing a kind of 'civic monopoly' with 'funny money' gleaned from the Public Purse might or might not be 'a bridge too far'. That 'the money' here is in fact ratepayers' money and it seems to escape the attention of Launceston's Town Hall and the city's management that this is in fact the case. When ratepayers pay their rates they are investing in the amenity of the city. They not making 'charitable gifts' to the city's management.

In fact the Local Govt. Act  in SECTION 62/2 drawn up in 1993 essentially gives General Managers carte blanche to exploit ratepayers without redress. Tasked with managing the city as a corporate entity General Managers have extraordinary power – powers that they can even control the elected Councillors with and apparently do.  In the real corporate world investors and shareholders would/could not tolerate such managerial shenanigans. Why is Local Govt. so special?

In the scheme of things this building that is the subject of current contention is very much a part of Launceston's history and cultural landscape. It is being treated as the subject of what seems to be yet another shonky development all because it seems that the 'money people' at Town Hall got caught out dipping into the Public Purse to play Funny Money with – it beggars belief. It is not for nothing that this building has become embedded in what has become the legendary Birchall's Carpark Debacle.

Indeed, anyone paying attention to the goings on relative to 'planning'  in the Brisbane St. Mall will know by now that Council has actually turned it into a 'black hole' into which 'management' has poured enormous amounts of ratepayers' money. Not to put too fine a point on it, tradies, contractors, consultants, et al have scurried off laughing all the way to the bank. 

IN THE GOOD DAYS – STORY LINK

Now ratepayers face the prospect of yet another COUNCIL FOLLEY being played out well away from the light of day and with them carrying the can at the end of the day for all the loses. 

True or otherwise, the 'street talk' that says Town Hall's managers say that ratepayers do not need to make a profit, if so, it has a cynical tone to it. In one sense it is true BUT likewise ratepayers cannot afford to continually 'carry the can' for the city's management's fiscal failures and their elastic budgets. 

In the Brisbane St Mall there are enough budget overruns etc. to finance a range of development urgently awaiting attention. There would be enough money in the kitty to pay the salaries of the city's managers for several years, remembering of course that their salaries generally eclipse real world salaries. Or, on the other hand, maintain all roads and footpaths to an appropriate standard. The ratepayers' lot is not a happy one.

If the State Govt. stands by and fails to protect ratepayers in regard to this matter that would be unconscionable behavior. If ratepayers actually need to take this matter to the resource starved Integrity Commission or the Ombudsman that would be outrageous. Likewise, if the Federal Govt. stands by and lets Drought Relief Funding play ANY part at all in this whole sad and sorry saga then the Treasure's statements about responsible fiscal governance are as hollow as the previous Government's promises.

There should be no doubt about it, if ratepayers are unhappy they have every right to be. Moreover, the really disturbing thing is that 'the elected 12' seem to have lost control of Council and so much so that there is a good case for believing that the Local Govt system in Tasmania is well and truly broken and way past its use-by-date.

THAT DROUGHT MONEY FOR THE DROUGHT THAT LAUNCESTON JUST DID NOT SEE

Cast your mind back to August 2020 when Launceston's Mayor van Zetten was promoting the assertion that Council applied for drought relief funding for a drought Launceston just did not have “in good faith” and that the application was an ‘operational matter’ anyway. Thus it was a matter determined well away from the involvement of Councillors apparently. 

The application turns out to be a tad shonky given that all/most/some Councillors were apparently kept in the dark in regard to the application. Indeed, rumour has it that Council was invited to apply in order that ‘The Bass Electorate’ got some dosh. 

Most, if not all, Councillors ultimately apparently satisfied themselves that the application was indeed made in ‘good faith’ and based upon the appropriate evidence. So, individually and collectively, they assured themselves, and by extension their constituency, that the money coming to the city met all the appropriate criteria plus it met all the appropriate ethical and moral standards. But how?

You see “the Council has purchased a share of the Paterson Street Central car park”, as well as the former Birchalls building, to build a new bus interchange and undercover arcade linking through to the Brisbane Street Mall. But did Council do that? There was a couple of court cases where the judiciary had an alternate view. 

CLICK HERE STORY LINK

In retrospect all of that is a rather curious concept, but one must remember that the city’s GM (AKA CEO) declared the matter to be confidential so yet again Town Hall’s MORAL COMPASS pointed to wherever the money was it seems – not where one goes for moral comfort. 

We really do need to remember that the then PM’s DROUGHTdosh it turns out was to be used for a spurious purpose and a project that has found the players thrashing it all out in court and basically to no avail. All of which leaves the hapless ratepayer paying up and apparently because she/he ‘does not need to profit from her/his investment in Council’.

Despite the Bureau of Meteorology’s published map indicating that not only wasn’t the municipality drought effected neither was anywhere else in Tasmania, so by what criteria did Launceston’s Town Hall cut the mustard?

Council asserted that “bureau data in the 20 months preceding the Council's application submission on December 2019 clearly showed a severe deficiency in rainfall for the region. Additionally, according to the Bureau, both the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 year figures showed that the kanamluka/Tamar River was well below average in terms of flow and were at equivalent levels to those recorded during the height of the millennial drought in Tasmania.” This seems at odds with the bureau’s map but for sure there is some bureaucratic spin to deal with all that. 

If you lived in Launceston, your emory is intact, and didn’t experience a drought – or even water restrictions – you probably need help of some kind given all that other Australians went through. Currently it is catastrophic flooding that the city missed out on but when the levies fail – and they will as they did in Lismore – Town Hall is likely to be looking for a grant to gold plate some taps in some “end of trip showers”.

Council deemed itself eligible for the $10Mil at that initial stage, and the grant application was submitted - it is as simple as that. Extraordinarily, the Council and the Coordinator General's Office are still working through the processes and planning around the acceptance of the grant and Town Hall says it will share further details with the public once this process is complete. 

However, the goal posts seem to have been shifted yet again. 

The news coming out of, well overheard in, a coffee shop in the Brisbane Street Mall is that the ‘investor’ who lost his court case is being helped by Council to buy the Historic Birchells Building to do his thing there AND the word is that the “DROUGHTdosh” is still in the mix. It is like this, three men can keep a secret just so long as two are dead.

How on earth could that money still be there?

ANYWAY if this building is to be sold 

why not to the highest bidder?

THE CONTENTIOUS DELEGATED AUTHORITY ISSUE AT LAUNCESTON'S TOWN HALL

 

Delegated authority cascades through the entire organisation, from the Council to the Executive Team; from the executive team to senior managers; and from senior managers to the implementing teams they manage. 

A Program Manager may be accountable for the financial management of a number of projects, each of which is led by a Project Manager, who manages a number of teams. The responsibility for day-to-day financial management tasks is delegated down through the line management structure. At the same time, the accountability process moves back up through the hierarchical structure as people report back on progress. 

Importantly, 'The Council' is ultimately accountable in law for the financial management of  Council expenditure.

Everyone in the organisation operates within the rules set by their level of delegated authority. At a project level, this means taking responsibility for a wide range of tasks that have been delegated, and being accountable to line managers for delivering results, monitoring progress and reporting on decisions made.

Some 'delegated authorities' pertain to emergency situations and some pertain to circumstances where 'officers' are required to act in situations where their expertise is required in order to achieve an appropriate outcome.

A copy of the 'Delegated Authorities' must be available at Town Hall to whomever wishes to inspect it and many Councils will provide a copy to members upon request for their research – that has not been always the case at Launceston's Town Hall. 

For Example see https://www.gcc.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/provisions-for-gm-2020.pdf ... & https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Council/Legislation-and-Policy/Delegations-Register

Over time, Launceston Council has increasing engaged Aldermen/Councillors in contentiously 'delegating of their authority' upon the General Manager's (AKA CEO) initiative and currently to the extent where some claim the GM/AKA CEO's role currently distorts the city's governance.

This being the case there is an URGENT NEED to cancel ALL delegated authorities at Launceston's Town Hall and reinstate the ONES OF NECESSITY line item by line item. If there is to be INDIRECT REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY in the city, its 'credibility' needs to be restored and forthwith!

Under the Tasmanian Local Govt. Act 1993 the GM/AKA CEO has extraordinary powers – SEE SECTION 62/2 – that together with his delegated authority it can be claimed ultimately distorts the 'governance process' in inappropriate ways. Thus Launcestonians need to be mindful of all this when voting inn the Local Govt. Election.

BE AWARE AND BEWARE, THE QVMAG COLLECTIONS ARE AT RISK

 

Launceston ratepayers are generally unaware that when they vote for a 'COUNCILLOR' they are, by default, voting fo a QVMAG TRUSTEE.  Most 'Council candidates' are also unaware that, if elected, they become 'trustees' for the QUEEN VICTORIA MUSEUM & ART GALLERY (QVMAG) albeit that they might not have the appropriate skill sets. It is not their fault that they might not know as it is an anomaly put in place by 'incumbency management' and it is somewhat self-serving – essentially it justifies a bigger highly paid bureaucracy.

The GM/AKA CEO says that this is not the case but by DEFAULT it is and it is self-serving of him to assert otherwise!

lutruwitaTASMANIA’s musingplaces are among the worlds shrines to colonialism with the QVMAG being an exemplar in its nomenclature. That and Tasmanian ‘placedness’ lends a nuance to the island’s musingplaces – and the QVMAG more so than most. Governing a museum and art gallery requires special skill sets when the institution is as large and culturally significant as the QVMAG is. 

By necessity, musingplaces need governors/trustees with particular skill sets not by necessity held by elected Councillors OR General Managers.

Governance and 'management' are distinct from each other yet the current incumbency seems not to acknowledge this reality and apparently for reasons of some bureaucratically perverse expression of dilettantism arguably designed and devised to avoid true accountability. This must change given that in the end it is unsustainable!

looking back, ex-Launceston Alderperson, Rosemary Armitage MLC  is clearly a member of that cohort of Tasmanians and Launcestonians who are quite comfortable with the colonial legacy cum peri-colonial status of Tasmania’s, indeed Australia’s musingplaces as if the status quo is sustainable in a 21^st C context. 

Since that era there has been a CONGAline of Launcestonian who over time have distorted the QVMAG's 'governance' in ways that arguably has right now put the QVMAG's $230Million PLUS collections at risk due to the paucity of 'Council governance/trusteeship'.

Clearly, Rosemary Armitage MLC and that dilettante CONGAline have held the line that the QVMAG is not there to put on exhibitions to do with issues such as forestry, mining etc. rather they need to be showing people the treasures in their collections .  

Notably, Pierre-Auguste Renoir said that to his mind, a picture should be something pleasant, cheerful, and pretty, yes pretty! There are too many unpleasant things in life as it is without creating still more of them. Somehow this encapsulates how the Launceston Council's 'incumbency' over time has imagined the QVMAG and sadly so. The institution in a 21st C context demands more than that!

However, the current City of Launceston Council is engaged in ‘very serious budget repair’ and is thus predisposes it to rid the city of what is perceived by management as being its non-core cost centres –the QVMAG being high on the priority list. So, out goes the baby with the bathwater! 

What can be observed in regard to the QVMAG is a situation at Launceston’s Town Hall that is a ‘mare’s nest’ – pun and double entendre intended – that is in urgent need of being unravelled”. This is something, that has been showing up in  ‘the QVMAG musingplace thinkers' petri dishes’ for decades and it needs to dealt with. 

Thus Launceston, right now, needs a Council that will be proactive and expeditious in 'separating' the QVMAG from 'Council management' and installing A BRAND NEW QVMAG GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT PARADIGM.

That might well be achieved by dispensing with the Town Hall incumbency at this Local Govt election. So, please vote carefully and please do not congratulate the incumbency with your vote.

CRUNCH TIME FOR LAUNCESTON TOWN HALL

Launceston Council constituents 

now have a choice to make. 

MORE OF THE SAME?

CHANGE CANGE CAN BE ACHIEVED!

Please ask your incumbent Councillors what they have achieved for the city and what they stood for up for. Then do a credibility check, look around you streets etc. and vote accordingly.

With 33 candidates, there is a message in this for the incumbency 

that VOTERS should think about looking ahead.

There is much more to be said about 'delegated authorities' at Town Hall!

Voting is compulsory for all enrolled voters, making it more important than ever to be familiar with the candidates. The election will be done completely via postal ballots which are being sent out from Monday, October 3. They are due back by Tuesday, October 25, when the polls close.

ADRIAN BARRETT ... Councillor candidate

Mr Barrett, who has a background in music events, has a focus on parks for the suburbs, supporting for local businesses, clearer accountability for grant funding and also looking at Launceston's suburbs.

THANE BRADY ... Deputy mayor and councillor candidate

Mr Brady has a focus on the shortage of sports grounds, investing in roads, improving transport, parking, and fixing rivers. He is president of North Launceston Football Club.

GEOFF BRAYFORD ... Councillor candidate

Mr Brayford has an engineering and business background. He was a member of Launceston Rotary and was state president of Engineers Australia in 2006. He previously worked for council as a city infrastructure manager.

ALEX BRITTON ... Councillor candidate

Mr Britton is a local business owner who co-owns Levee Restaurant. He wants to see council find a solution for the kanamaluka/Tamar and believes in "independent authority."

SUSIE CAI ... Councillor candidate

Ms Cai owns Launceston business Golden Brumby. She has a focus on "inappropriate development". Ms Cai will prioritise traffic congestion, Tamar River siltation and seeing equality in council.

ANDREA DAWKINS ... Deputy mayor and councillor candidate INCUMBENCY CANDIDATE

Ms Dawkins was first elected to council in 2014, she has a background in small business and is deputy chief officer for RSCPA Tasmania. Ms Dawkins wants to focus on working collaboratively with fellow councillors.

FENELLA EDWARDS ... Councillor candidate

Ms Edwards ran for the Senate earlier this year where she stood for forests and animals, increased housing availability and affordability. Her candidate statement was not supplied to the TEC. Ms Edwards has a background in the arts.

MATTHEW GARWOOD ...Deputy mayor and councillor candidate

Mr Garwood has a background in arts and music. His priorities for council are supporting business growth, CBD parking and the growth of Launceston including the northern suburbs.

JACOB GELSTON ... Deputy mayor and councillor candidate

Mr Gelston's focuses for council include a solution for the kanamaluka/Tamar area, housing affordability and homelessness, pushing for more fitness/lifestyle programs, and having more inclusive spaces.

DANNY GIBSON ... Mayor and councillor candidate INCUMBENCY CANDIDATE

Mr Gibson is council's incumbent deputy mayor. Mr Gibson's focus for council is to see more housing, a solution for kanamaluka/Tamar, and to leverage cultural institutions like the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery and Princess Theatre.

TIM GUNTON ... Deputy mayor and councillor candidate

Mr Gunton has had a varied working life, working as a tradie, before spending 20 years at Telstra and the past 10 years working at NBN. He has a focus on the promotion of the many minor sporting clubs and providing recreation facilities for youth.

ALAN HARRIS ... Mayor and councillor candidate INCUMBENCY CANDIDATE

Mr Harris is a current councillor, and was elected in 2018. His focus is to fix the kanamaluka/Tamar River, improve personal safety, parking, reinvigorate the CBD and optimise the transport network.

SAM HAY ...Councillor candidate

Mr Hay has a background in business. His primary focus is connecting people with council, supporting hospitality businesses and finding solutions to homelessness.

ANDREW LOVITT ... Councillor candidate

Mr Lovitt is the chair of the Tamar Action Group. His focus is to see the Tamar River "have a seat at the table."

HUGH MCKENZIE ...Deputy mayor and councillor candidateINCUMBENCY CANDIDATE

Mr McKenzie has been an elected councillor for 11 years and has a background in financial accountability. He wants to support sustainable growth, and promote workable transport and traffic strategies.

LINDI MCMAHON ... Councillor candidate

Ms McMahon is a business owner. Her priority for council is to see improved safety measures, further development, capping rates, finding real solutions to homelessness, sound traffic management and clean up Tamar River.

ROSS MARSDEN ... Deputy mayor and councillor candidate

Mr Marsden wants to see opportunities for future generations. Mr Marsden wants to represent Launceston's diverse population, individuals, families and local business. He has a background in media and business.

JARAD MURRAY ... Deputy mayor and councillor candidate

Mr Murray is a property manager and small business owner. His candidate statement was not supplied to the TEC. Mr Murray stands for sustainable development and improved liveability in Launceston.

ANDREW PALMER ... Councillor candidate

Mr Palmer has a background in the arts and is a business owner. He wants to hear what people want to see in council and see Launceston thrive.

TENILLE PENTLAND ... Councillor candidate

Ms Pentland owns a local hotel and is a financial planner. Her focus is on strategic planning for sustainable growth and futureproofed design. Ms Pentland also looks to develop strategies around cost of living and homelessness.

JOE PENTRIDGE ... Councillor candidate

Mr Pentridge's focus is to prioritise heritage. He wants to see council held accountable for its actions and respecting heritage.

BRUCE POTTER ... Councillor candidate

Mr Potter is a business owner and owned the Royal Oak Hotel for 42 years. He wants to see Launceston have a fair rating system, clean healthy river and strong employment.

KRISTA PREECE ... Deputy mayor and councillor candidate INCUMBENCY CANDIDATE

Ms Preece is a current councillor who replaced Janie Finlay in 2021. Ms Preece stands for growth in Launceston and wants to see a safe community that supports lifestyle, educational institutions, businesses, tourism, health, culture, arts, sport and people.

GEORGE RAZAY ... Mayor and councillor candidate

Dr Razay is a local physician. His focus for council is to play an active role in public health through combating air pollution and traffic congestion, revitalising the city centre, supporting homeless people especially with the increased cost of living, and improve the Tamar River.

KIRSTEN RITCHIE ... Deputy mayor and councillor candidate

Ms Ritchie is the founder of Strike It Out. Her campaign focus is on affordable cost of living, cleaning the Tamar River, traffic management, developing drop-in centres and youth centres, and transparency in council.

CECILY ROSOL ... councillor candidate

Ms Rosol has a background in health and ran as a Greens candidate earlier this year. Her council priorities are town planning, housing stress, inequality and climate change. Ms Rosol also wants to see the community enjoy public spaces.

BOB SALT ... Mayor and councillor candidate

Mr Salt has a business background and was a former Jacqui Lambie Network Bass candidate. Mr Salt wants to see the Tamar River's health resolved and other waste issues looked into.

STEVE SAUNDERS ... Councillor candidate

Mr Saunders has worked in corporate IT. He wants to focus on city growth, housing and homelessness, Aboriginal land justice, promoting EV use, local food security, maintaining Launceston's heritage character and liveability, and the Tamar mud.

PAUL SPENCER ... Councillor candidate INCUMBENCY CANDIDATE

Mr Spencer is a current councillor. He runs a business and works as an electrician. Mr Spencer wants to see reduced parking fees, late night shopping and solutions to help kanamaluka/Tamar River.

JOHN SUITOR ... Councillor candidate

Mr Suitor has previously been on Circular Head Council and has a background in water authority and planning. He wants to see another bridge over the Tamar, better roads, and a safe walking track at Windermere.

NELSON TABE ... Councillor candidate

Mr Tabe is a music teacher. He wants to see Launceston preserve its heritage while still moving forward. Mr Tabe wants to see council be impartial and allow all voices to be heard.

OWNE TILBURY ... Councillor candidate

Mr Tilbury has a background in arts and business. His priority for running council is cleaning up the Tamar and making it a "recreational treasure."

TIM WALKER ... Mayor and councillor candidate INCUMBENT CANDIDATE

Mr Walker is a current councillor for Launceston and has background in media and politics. Mr Walker's focus for council is to increase affordable housing, bring life to the CBD, reduce parking costs, protect our built heritage, restore the Tamar, green our shopping precincts and improve community consultation.

LAUNCESTONIANS PLEASE BE CAREFUL HOW YOU GO!

Launcestonians are faced with making an important decision in the next weeks. They have choices to make in regard to how they wish to be 'represented' relative to HOW they have been. They have 33 candidates to choose from, so 'The INCUMBENCY' can be replaced.

At the election Launcestonians DO NOT have an opportunity to do anything about the city's self-serving, self assessing management BUT by displacing 'The INCUMBENCY' they can elect representatives who WILL hold 'management' accountable.

The fact is, some incumbents have abdicated and are out of the race, some possibly on the prospect of being judged harshly by their constituents, and others because they passed their use-by-date. Please consider who is left and WHAT they have and have not done!

As for 'the residue' for the most part they deserve to be judged harshly for what has transpired in THEIR INCUMBENCY under THEIR WATCH! Consider the city's debt, its budget overruns, its bureaucratic follies and the fiscal management of ratepayers' resources – and very carefully.

'Representing' a community in the role of 'placemakers' should not be a 'side-gig' with fringe benefits. If we must have Indirect Representational Democracy for now, lets have 'representatives' who actually represent the aspirations of their constituency rather than their aspirations and idealogical positions – they must be accountable for their successes, inadequacies and misdeeds.

The simplest definition of 'placemaking' is the process of creating quality places that people want to live, work, play, and learn in. Placemaking is a process. It is a means to an end: it is to do with the creation of 'Quality Places'. Ultimately, that is why Councillors are there, it is their job, no ifs, no buts!

"It is now widely accepted that well-designed, well-managed places deliver economic, social and environmental benefits and that placemaking goes far beyond good quality pavements or street furniture."

LONDON FIRST

TEAM GUNNADO AT TOWN HALL PLOTS A WAY FORWARD

SOMETHING YOU HAVE WHEN YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING REALLY

City of Launceston council's Homeless Advisory Committee meets for the first time.  Alison Foletta By Alison Foletta September 26 2022 - 4:00am

Launceston council continue efforts for homeless crisis  ????

City of Launceston's Homeless Advisory Committee met for the first time on September 1. The group was devised after an emotional meeting in April saw dozens of people living homeless in the city plea for support from council.

In response, council were able to set up portable toilets around the city as well as keep some toilet blocks open 24 hours. [Where are they and when were they installed?]

Another response was the formation of the committee which would take over from the previous Homelessness Response Committee and would bring together community and service provider representatives. [What did the Homelessness Response Committee do? Anything?]

Councillors Andrea Dawkins and Krista Preece were elected to be the council representatives on the committee. Council's response was not without criticism. Earlier in the meeting during public questions, two members of the public raised concerns about council's efforts. [And rightly so!]

Strike It Out founder Kirsten Ritchie asked about the use of halls in Launceston and green spaces that were secure for people to set up tents. Community and place general manager Dan Ryan answered her questions. He firstly said there were no available halls in Launceston. [Is that actually the case or is it a 'deemed decision'?]

"While a thorough review [?] of potential locations for such sites have been undertaken with the above criteria in mind, the suggested approach is actually not one that is generally supported by others working within our homeless advisory committee and engaged in that sector," Mr Ryan said. [OH DEAR we cannot make these people seem to be inadequate and missing opportunities as that might just be the case]

Ms Ritchie also asked "Whose responsibility is it to ensure the wellbeing of our community members are met with having provisions of basic amenities provided while sleeping rough available 24/7?" [Pertinent question!]

Mr Ryan said it was a "complex issue first and foremost". [OH MY GOODNESS ... after all the time that this matter has been on Council's agenda its complexity has not been able to be articulated and accountabilities identified, well there is a story there!]

"Responsibility for the provision of public housing and mental services rests with the state government, the City of Launceston does acknowledge it also has a role to play in the facilitation with positive outcomes for the community ," he said.[Inside-the-box thinking in isolation from the real world]

In late April when the amenities were announced, City of Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten said council had commenced an audit of council-owned infrastructure to identify potential spaces for service providers to utilise in the provision of support initiatives.[With what options in mind and in reference to who in regard to expertise?]

At the time, council had also planned to roll out shower facilities for people living homeless.

Andrew Cassidy also from Strike It Out brought up the question of the showers. He asked council "how far away are the showers to be utilised and where they would be situated?"[SO, actually there are no showers just the possibility of some!]

Mr Ryan said council had investigated "many options" for suitable shower facilities but were unable to progress. He said council had partnered with service facilities to open showers at the former YMCA building in Kings Meadows, and extended opening hours for the showers at the Gorge.[Quite inadequate and inappropriate]

"There are also existing shower facilities available at Morton's place and Shop for Hope in the CBD," Mr Ryan said. [So, why aren't people using them?]

The Royal Park toilet block will also be redeveloped to include showers. The development is expected to kick off in the new year. [Yet another gunnado promise]

Council have frequently called the issue of homelessness a complex issue and that as a council they would work as advocates. [YEP, deemed not to be a COUNCIL responsibility along with many other things]

"The City of Launceston is committed to playing a constructive role [??] in the provision of short, medium and long-term solutions for the homeless community, in collaboration with other tiers of government and key stakeholders," Cr van Zetten said in April. [YEP, that was April but not ac lot of progress and excuses a plenty!!]

Recently, Cr van Zetten said due to well publicised supply issues and the level of infrastructure required for fit-for-purpose facilities such as these, council have unfortunately not been able to progress these plans for shower units as quickly as hoped. [YET more gunna do talk]

"We will continue to work with the recently established Homelessness Advisory Committee and other stakeholders to identify the best solutions for those sleeping rough in Launceston," he said.[ A cynical ruse to appear as if Council is doing something WHEN the real issue is HOUSING and the committee destined to report Council lacked the resources etc. etc.]

Councillor Andrea Dawkins said during the first meeting, the committee identified shared goals and "looked at what we can do in the short, medium and long term". [GOLD PLATTED KLAP TRAP and empty rhetoric]

"What was decided is that we would meet more regularly while we could because we want to keep the momentum going with this group," she said. [MORE OF THE ABOVE!]

Cr Dawkins said people with lived experience were "exceptional", and had people "hanging on every word." [ How much more of this hollow rhetoric is there to be dealt out in a crisis?]

POSTSCRIPT: It needs to be remembered that for ALL City of Launceston SUB committees:

•  They are required to meet in camera;
•  Their agendas are confidential;
•  Their deliberations are confidential;
•  They essentially only report to Councillors in confidence; and
•  Members are required to maintain confidentiality in regard to their proceedings.

Also, they are essentially 'community advisory groups' set up to advise Council on community perceptions, yet 'the community' cannot be trusted to know how they, and their values, have been presented to Council.

Given SECTION 62/2 under the Act a General Manager can deem 'community advice' irrelevant if she/he is in conflict with it. Consequently community advice may never get to be deliberated upon in OPEN COUNCIL.

Against this background it is little wonder that Council SUBcommittees are thought of as 'gunnado talkfests'.