SUBMISSION TO THE CITY OF LAUNCESTON COUNCILLORS JANUARY 25, 2024

SUBMISSION TO THE CITY OF LAUNCESTON COUNCILLORS JANUARY 25, 2024

Primarily there are four grounds upon which concerned citizens in Launceston might well mount an objection to the transfer oa community assets to a State Government Statutory Authority.

YORK PARK’S ASPIRING AUTHORITY

Stadiums Tasmania’s stated purpose for being is to own'asserts' , and beyond that its 'purpose' is quite simply to be a 'statutory authority'. That is an ‘authority’ that is by and large self-accountable and self-defining and an entity that has been devised operate without reference to or be accountable to a constituency. On the available evidence, it is clear that fundamentally Stadiums Tasmania has been designed to be a standalone self-regulating autocratic operation.

It is concerning that Stadiums Tasmania, as an entity, is controlled at arm's length by Board Members / Non-Executive Directors. It turns out that these ‘directors’ are appointed by a division of the State Government and apparently without any kind of transparent 'community accountability strategy' being put in place.

Consequently, Stadiums Tasmania is rather like a rudderless ship that is not designed to deliver against any ‘performance criteria’. Put another way, the entity is virtually ‘purposeless’and therefore not actually required to deliver any kind of‘dividend’ – social, cultural, or financial – to the community – ratepayers, taxpayers, et al – who, by design, provide the entity with all the wherewithal to exist as an entity – and at considerable expense.

Moreover, Stadiums Tasmania’s board may delegate any of the authority’s functions and powers to a range of people, individuals even, with unspecified accountability. This means that in the case of York Park those who transfer their ‘interest/investment’ in this ‘community asset’ do so without any real prospect of realising a return – social cum cultural dividend – in recompense for their substantial decades’ long investment in ‘their’ asset – their facility, their place, in their cultural landscape. 

Indeed, by ‘gifting’ this asset to an ‘authority’ that is not in any way accountable to those who have created the asset, Launcestonians lose all manner of opportunities. In fact, Launcestonians will miss out on, give up,  multiple opportunities to benefit from their very substantial long-term investments in York Park. This is untenable.

THE OWNERSHIP ISSUE

The 'ownership issue' as is being acted upon, is at odds with the interests of York Park’s diverse multifaceted, community and the place’s stakeholders’ and their aspirations. An extraordinary number of people have legitimate ownerships and interests invested in York Park as a place – for them, a significant place. 

There is evidence of somewhat sinister 'rankism' in almost every aspect of what is being proposed in this initiative to gift a community asset to an authority unaccountable to them and by-and-large unaccountable to any community.

Rankism, like sexism, and homophobia is abusive, discriminatory, exploitative and it allows practices and relationship based on 'rank' in an assumed hierarchy to prosper. It blatantly disadvantages those assumed to be subordinate and powerless minions. 

Rankism also underlies many other socially toxic phenomena such as bullying, racism, ageism, sexism, ableism, and anti-semitism and it must not be ignored. The insidiousness of rankism diminishes whole communities and wherever it is found it must be called out.

Rankism's is unacceptable even though we structure social networks on rank. However, rankism tells so called 'nobodies' in a community that they are powerless and here it is at the service of bureaucratic need . This means that the 'somebodies'with power believe that must prevail. 

Nonetheless, in rankism, 'a somebody' in one setting is bound to be 'a nobody' in another, and vice versa. When somebodies use the power of their position in one setting to exercise power in another, that's rankism. When somebodies use the power of their position to put a permanent hold on their power, that is rankism.

Moreover, what is being proposed in gifting of York Park is an act of 'colonisation' and an example of the appropriation of a place for one's own purpose and careless of the ‘place’s’community values. It is visibly, and palpably, based upon the application of supposedly superior power. Up to this point the 'imposition of power' has by and large gone on in isolation and insulated from incisive criticism and critique. 

In fact, the very notion that it might well be a "lay down messier" is a demonstration of the blatant arrogance informing the initiative. Thus, no need to consider or consult the people who have interests and ownerships invested in this place.

In addition, there is no evidence of any consideration being granted to the palawa/pakana people, the traditional owners, and custodians of 'the place'. As much as any other in lutruwitaTasmania, this place comes vested with cultural significance and sovereignty that has never been seeded.

Against this backgrounding there are people who strongly object to the apparently self-serving rankism that can be found in this largely bureaucratic assertion of authority. The possibilities to be found in this apparently self-serving initiative are disturbing. Bureaucratic imperatives should not, and need not, be tolerated or endorsed at any level of governance at any time in 2024.

THE NEED FOR OWNERSHIP

Despite the wording of the Stadiums Tasmania Act there is no real imperative for 'legal ownership' to be transferred to this new bureaucratic entity. The assumption that Stadiums Tasmania:

• Will succeed; and
• Has the wherewithal to succeed; and
• Has a viable business case that will enable it to generate an adequate income; and
• Can be relied upon to succeed; and it
• Lacks veracity and is at best a self-serving assessment. 

Tasmania's and Australia's legal system is what it is, and it is open to challenge – and aggrieved people do so on a daily basis. Launcestonians who have been investing in York Park are entitled to expect to receive a dividend – financial, social, and cultural – as a consequence of their investment, or as an inheritance they have bought into by moving to the city and investing in property. 

So long as local governance is delivered in the current way in Tasmania constituents need to be vigilant in protecting their 'investment'. In this instance, the language along with the assumptions being made, the transferring of ownership being proposed is proceeding without meaningful consultation processes. 

Consequently, ‘the gifting’ is spiked with the cultural cargo to be found in inherited colonial arrogance. It is not anywhere near what 21st C transparent accountable governance should be, or indeed could be, advocating.

Apart from the so-called relief of 'debt generating obligations' –assumed to be $3Million pa – there is no hint whatsoever that Stadiums Tasmania will meet its obligations to the city in the ordinary way like any other 'corporate entity'. On the face of it, relative to this initiative, the converse would seem to be the case. Stadiums Tasmania might well seek a leasing arrangement that benefits the current ownership.

The is no hint whatsoever that Stadiums Tasmania imagines itself as any kind of charity. Therefore, any claim that Stadiums Tasmania is an organization whose purpose for being is to give money, food, or help to those who need it, or to carry out activities such as medical research that will help people in need, is absolute nonsense to say the least. 

Like any other 'corporate entity' Stadiums Tasmania should be contributing to the provision of 'community infrastructure and services' given that it is its full intention is to avail the entity the benefits of these things. There is no claim that it intends to be an accountable contributor to the services it intends to exploit.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Stadiums Tasmania's client base:

Will be using the city's roadways etc., and heavily, to access York Parks facilities.

Will be consigning anything deemed to be 'waste' to the city's 'Waste Management Centre' without a cost contribution.

Will be availing itself of all the city has to offer without any necessity to meet its corporate obligations in any form. 

Ownership brings with it a set of rights that in turn come with a full set of obligations and there is no evidence for expecting Stadiums Tasmania as a quasi-profit-oriented operation will be meeting its obligations as a corporate citizen . 

Stadiums Tasmania is not a charity and, it must pay its way but clearly it does not intend to. So much for the obligations of ownership.

If Stadiums Tasmania operates from York Park, it must do so meeting all the obligations of any corporate cum institutional entity given that the entity is not a charity. There is every prospect that Stadiums Tasmania will be an expensive corporate entity that will not be meeting its obligations as ordinary ratepayers are required to do via their annual rate demand.

Against this backgrounding clearly there are powerful reasons to object , and object strongly ,to the arrogant hubris that is on display and that is deeply invested in the initiative to ‘gift’ York Park to Stadiums Tasmania.

THE MATTER OF NATURAL JUSTICE

There is the issue of 'natural justice' that is essentially being overlooked. The City of Launceston's ratepayers and other citizens have not been able to address this matter. 

That this might be the case it is a non-trivial consideration. Given all that has already been canvased ratepayers and citizens have not been provided with meaningful and appropriate opportunities to contest what was essentially: an initiative: 

• An initiative floated by City of Launceston management; and one
• Support by a cohort of Councillors almost entirely to do with finance; and one 
• That has been progressed without meaningful consideration being given to for those who haved social and cultural values invested in York Park and the land/place it occupies.

Moreover, everything on display regarding this initiative runs counter to the State Government's Good Governance Guide that speaks loudly of accountability and transparency in governance.

On the available evidence, primarily the deliberations relating to the initiative have apparently taken place in camera and well away from any criticism or critique. All too often, civic decision making in Launceston has almost nothing to do with open deliberation around the decision table. Arguably, in this case it has been carefully avoided and only scantly reported on elsewhere. 

Given the timing and: 

• The appearance on the agenda of just the second meeting of the new council on the cusp of ‘the holiday season’;  and 
• The meeting being presided over by a new mayor; and
• The meeting seeking the endorsement of the previous Council's decision making; and
• The processes up until that point had largely been taking place under a veil of secrecy.

It is hardly surprising that all this might be characterised as sinister Machiavellism in full flight.

Also, it is evident that the initiative and the decision making has been driven by imperatives not entirely to do the aspirations of Council’s constituency. It turns out that confidentiality is a delicate bargain of trust and here it seems that the constituency is/was seen as being untrustworthy. Why? In what way? On what grounds?

On the grounds that Councillors are elected and are ultimately 'trusted' to represent all constituents it follows that constituents might well object most strongly, to a detrimental determination. That is so not only to do with the lack trust but also to the denial of natural justice. 

Unless and until Councillors meaningfully engage with those people, Council constituents and York Park's networks of social and cultural ‘investors’, Council's apparent disregard for them is ever likely to be challenged. 

‘Rightness’ is nothing to do with being a part of some assume untested ‘majority’. It is said that in a constitutional democracy its purpose is to safeguard the rights of a minority and avoid the tyranny of the majority. Clearly, that is not in evidence in this case.

There is a network of Launcestonians who object most strongly to this community asset, owned by, and invested in by, the people of Launceston being transferred to Stadiums Tasmania. It does not matter that they might be perceived to be a minority. Mostly it is because Council’s management, on the evidence, is absolutely disinclined to test community sensibilities and sensitivities to facilitate more inclusive placemaking outcomes.

Whatever the outcome, those attempting to divest Launcestonians of an iconic asset are unlikely to be the winners of Community Service or Leadership Awards.

IN CONCLUSION

Given the ambiguity and the undertones of inappropriateness that are evident in this gifting proposal there is the possibility to challenge the proposal in every way open to protect a significant community asset. 

Albeit late, and there being no immediate need for haste, the possibility of a meaningful community consultation process remains wide open to give voice to those being denied a voice. Moreover, an independent Citizen’s Jury/Assembly has every prospect of delivering a win-win outcome. Therefore, one question hanging in the air now is why not do that or something of the like now?

Moreover, regarding an appeal against Council making its decision to ‘gift’ York Park to Stadiums Tasmania:

• Despite any or all community representations made;  and 

• Given that Council has not provided adequate and appropriate for meaningful community consultation; and

• Despite the legitimate aspirations of people with layered interests ‘the place’, its histories, its stories, its very sense of placedness and ‘Launcestonianness’;

any appeal will place an enormous financial burden upon an aggrieved constituency pursuing that course of action. On the circumstantial evidence this what the proponents of this contentious ‘gifting’ are apparently relying upon. That this might in anyway be a part of a managerial strategy it is something more than concerning. Indeed, that ‘management’appears to have ‘ownership’ of the proposal and to be the driving force behind this proposal, this too is somewhat alarming in the context of good, accountable, and transparent local governance.

Endorsed

Ron Bains … Kings Meadows

Ray Norman … Trevallyn