Presumed authorised by Mayor Garwood
8.1.3. Public Questions on Notice - Ray Norman - Birchalls Building, Waste and Recovery Management; and Citizens Assemblies - 10 April 2024
8.1.3. Public Questions on Notice - Ray Norman - Birchalls Building, Waste and Recovery Management; and Citizens Assemblies - 10 April 2024
FILE NO: SF6381/SF0634/SF2628/SF4670/18182/18181/63380
AUTHOR: Lorraine Wyatt (Council and Committees Officer)
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Shane Eberhardt
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES:
The following questions, submitted to Council on 10 April 2024 by Ray Norman, have been answered by Shane Eberhardt (Acting Chief Executive Officer).
QUESTION 1
CONTEXT NOTE
Given the plethora of rumours surrounding Council’s (NO Launceston’s ratepayers)
acquisition of the Birchalls Building (BB) some of which is as follows:
• The current intended ‘purchaser’ of BB has purchased or intends to purchase the
Myer Building; and
• The current intended ‘purchaser’ of BB has or intends sue Council for a large
amount albeit that the Mayor acting on managerial advice says that it is not so; and
• The current intended ‘purchaser’ of BB has apparently been unable to meet a
commitment and for all intension’s purposes no longer figures in whatever comes
next for the BB in regard to its future; and
• The city’s ratepayers can only look forward to an initial FISCALloss AND a loss of
opportunity PLUS further and ongoing losses; and
• The accumulated debts and losses consequent to what appears to be a
MANAGEMENT DRIVEN initiative that has thus far has not delivered any kind of
dividend – fiscal, social nor cultural – and that this circumstance shows every
prospect of being compounded without the ratepayers’ ELECTED
REPRESENATIVES taking charge of the situation; and
• There being acknowledgement aground THEtable that around it there is insufficient
collective knowledge, skills, or experience to bring the BBdebacle to the best
possible resolution; and
• There now needs to be a CIRCUITbreaker put in place to ensure that the city’
ratepayers suffer no further losses given the current inequitable outcome that
ratepayers have been forced into and to bear.
Page 18
THE QUESTION
Given that Council finds itself in an invidious position along with ratepayers will Council now move proactively to empanel a CITIZEN’S ASSEMBLY tasked to discover the actual circumstances that have led to this debacle; share its finding with the community; and offer advice on an equitable way forward where ratepayers’ losses are minimalised?
Response:
Council continues to make informed decisions which are provided to the public when
appropriate to do so, through a variety of formats.
QUESTION 2
CONTEXT NOTE
Given that all the indications appear to be that:
• The city’ WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTRE appears to be consigning something in
the order of 50% of the incoming ‘waste stream’ that is deemed to be ‘waste’ and
thus consigned to landfill; and
• There is no proposed mechanism, managerial or other, to differentiate what might
be understood as ‘resource’ and what is truly ‘waste matter’; and
• Consequently, there is feasibly a high percentage if the ‘50% deemed to be waste’
that is indeed an unacknowledged ‘resource’ but nonetheless goes to landfill; and
• All this arguably runs counter to Council’s CLIMATE BEMERGENCY POLICY and
policies in place in other local governance jurisdictions; and
• Where there is an identifiable ‘status quo’ mindset that asserts that there is no
MARKET for the resources in the 50% of the incoming ‘waste stream’ is deemed
to be only fit for landfill; an
• Moreover, is oblivious to the current and urgent need for ‘sustainable resource
recovery’ worldwide; and
• Additionally, too few opportunities are being provided to Council Officers in this area
to acquire new knowledge, appropriate resources and/or skill sets to challenge the
status quo; and
• Executive Management until recently has been asserting that the city’s ‘Waste
Management Centre’ is ‘Cost Neutral’ when explored further it becomes evident
that is a “goal” NOT A FISCALfact; and
• Essentially, the community is being effectively locked out of any ‘policy
determination process’ that might initiate change. Altogether, all this places Launceston’s ratepayers in situation that would be avoided with appropriate and proactive community engagement.
Page 19
THE QUESTION
Given that Council and ratepayers find themselves in unsustainable circumstances
relevant to more sustainable resource recovery strategies, will Council now move
proactively to rename the ‘waste’ management centre to ’resource’ recovery centre and by extension, empanel a CITIZEN’S ASSEMBLY tasked to discover the actual
circumstances that actually pertain in this ‘space’ share its finding with Councillors, andnthe community; as well as offering advice on an equitable way forward where in excess of 90% of the incoming ‘waste stream’ can be deemed to be a resource?
Response:
Waste Management, incorporates a broad range of issues requiring different
strategies to tackle priorities ranging from landfill, to the recovery and management of
resources such as Food Organics Garden Organics (FOGO) and hazardous materials
and the environmental impacts associated with this.
QUESTION 3
CONTEXT NOTE
Given that Council management up to now has fervently opposed every proposition
advanced to initiate a CITIZEN’S ASSEMBLY/JURY while the lack of the ADVICE such bodies elsewhere are delivering is making for better civic outcomes and delivering more appropriate governance. For example, the Ostbelgien Model – that provides for a longterm Citizens' Council combined with short-term Citizens' Assemblies – is arguably delivering better and more equitable governance.
In Ostbelgien (German for Eastern Belgium, the German-speaking community of the country) in 2019, a permanent Citizens' Council was established in Ostbelgien to constitute the third fundamental democratic institution together with the Parliament and the Executive. While it might well be argued that this GOVERNANCEmode does not fit theTASMANIAN circumstance it on the available evidence can safely be regarded as selfserving ‘vacuous rhetoric’ – or in the vernacular, GOLDplated BOVINEdust.
Clearly the inhibitor here is the in-built transparency and accountability and given that
status quoists can forever be relied upon to promulgate such ill-informed decision making that is disconnected from those it is supposed to serve. It is submitted that Citizen’s
Assemblies/Juries and like ‘forums’:
• Can and do deliver better governance outcomes; and
• Can and do deliver appropriate dispute resolutions; and
• Can and do deliver appropriate community consultation mechanisms; and
• Can and do provide for meaningful replacements for in-house ‘advisory
committees’ where Councillors (those being advised) are advising Council
(themselves) and who are there delivering status quo advice as a consequence.
Page 20
Marianne Williamson … “Today’s status quo is unsustainable. Things are going to break in one direction or the other: either toward greater democracy and justice, or toward dystopia and authoritarianism.” Marianne Williamson will find many on the streets of Launceston who would openly support her and who fear ‘authoritarianism and dystopia’!
THE QUESTION
Given the implied and real benefits relative to Citizen’s Assemblies/Juries and like forumsnwill Council now move proactively to initiate a strategic policy shift to: firstly, make such assemblies an ongoing feature of the city’s governance; and secondly work with adjoining local governance jurisdictions to likewise adopt such a strategic policy shift?
Response:
Mr Norman's requests for the establishment of Citizen's Assemblies have been
previously addressed by the Council. The Council is committed to maintaining its focus on existing engagement processes with external and internal stakeholders, including, community members and organisations, employees and other relevant agencies, as required.
No comments:
Post a Comment