LAUNCESTON CITY COUNCIL: QUESTIONS ON NOTICE TO MAYOR AND ALL COUNCILLORS ... Public Questions on Notice April 18 2024

 City of Launceston Council Meeting Agenda nThursday 18 April 2024 Page 17

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.

More Launceston town delusionary thinking

FROM THE EXAMINER ….Continuity is a major part of the council's plans for the next financial year according to documents soon to be released for community consultation.

The Annual Plan 2024-25 lays out in broad terms what projects and initiatives the City of Launceston council expects to complete between July 1, 2024 and June 30, 2025. [That is a matter of great expectations without transparency and accountability given that Council ‘s Executive Management’s finger prints are all over this statement] 

Launceston mayor Matthew Garwood has committed to the 

Tasmanian Devils AFL team 

with a tattoo of the new logo. 

Video by Aaron Smith 

The Annual Plan 2023-24 listed 41 projects - 39 of which were in varying states of completion as of December 31, 2023. [That’s right, here we have the evidence that there has been a great deal of non-performance and the lack of Key Performance Indicators in the OLDplan that has been tolerated by time-serving status quo representatives who it seems are oblivious to their constituency's needs and aspirations]

Several of these have been bundled into the draft plan for 2024-25, which lists 49 projects. [That’s the status quo with tweaks and a trust inn the ALMIGHTY that it’ll all work out IF we hang in there etc. etc.!!] 

Some the projects carried over are largely unchanged from the earlier document, however others have been updated to reflect progress[??] throughout the year. [SO it is said!] 

These include the city's work on homelessness, where previously the council planned to "develop and implement the Homelessness Action Plan". [That’s right they’ve planned to have a plan after years of talking about having a plan] 

In 2024-25, however, the council plans for "continued implementation of" the Homelessness Statement of Commitment adopted early 2024. [That’s telling those coming to Town Hall looking for assistance they get an advice sheet telling people to go to a charity … THIS IS ADVICE OFFERED TO COUNCIL BY THE COMMITTEE POPULATED BY CHARITY PEOPLE … NO BUILDERS, NO ARCHITECTS!!! …and a COUPLE of Coubcillors and Officers to ensure that status quoism is protected along with maintaing current workloads.] 

Others were previously listed on the annual plan as part of other items but have since been sectioned off into their own items, like the Aboriginal Partnership Plan. [That again is a PLAN to tell those it effects this is how it is we’ve ticked the box!! Now let's just move on to ...... ] 

Start the conversation Have your say[??]. Leave a comment below and let us know what you think. Be the first to comment Newly listed projects in the annual plan include advocacy strategies for seeking state and federal funding and changing public transport delivery to allow easier access for residents. [This again is a plan to do a lot of talking until the point is reached where it can be said any solution imagined is too hard!!] 

The city's entrances are slated for a makeover with the help of the state government, and the council will also develop new policies including a community health and wellbeing strategy, and child and youth safety policies. [That’s enter a DARKroom and devise something without engaging MEANINGFULLY with the constituency always ensuring that the status quo is not disrupted.] 

The future of council-owned land at Russells Plains Road will be decided, as the council will reconsider whether the land is needed for landfill, and then develop a future strategy for its use. [That’s devising a strategy in isolation and without engaging with the LAND’S REAL OWNERS [AKA ratepayers] to develop a strategy that meets 21st C needs and expectations.... Launceston needs to be moving away from WASTEmanagement and to be proactively engaged in RESOURCErecovery] 

Other land use strategies are set to be developed, as the council looks to release more residential land and prevent looming shortages, and develop a long-term strategy for managing local cemeteries. [That’s developing strategies WITHOUT engaging with community EXPERTS who have money and opportunity invested in assets … CITIZENS & RATEPAYERS ... Always with this or that developer's profit driven aspirations] 

Flood resilience also features in the draft annual plan, with the council planning to install river level and rainfall sensors and develop a flood recovery framework. [That’s AGAIN implanting a plan without engaging with the people the PLAN will supposedly impact upon!! ... Door knocking to ask people how many times they are prepared to tolerate being flooded is not a way forward]

Wage negotiations and a council-wide AI usage policy are also on the cards, however these are internal projects rather than public-facing [??]. Work on things like a clean air strategy, the City Heart Project, a residential growth strategy for St Leonards and a revitalisation of the city's night time economy is due to continue, having featured in the 2023-24 plan. [That’s AGAIN implanting a plan without engaging with the people the PLAN will supposedly impact upon!! A CLAYONSprocess devised well away from those who it EFFECTS!] 

The draft Annual Plan 2024-25 and budget papers are expected to be released for wider public consultation after the council meeting on April. [That is AGAIN a question of selling the status quo as if it was VIABLE!! ... NB The avoidance of any mention of dealing with possible impending litigation relevant to COUNCILowned Birtchalls Building and the already realised losses of income and opportunity ... A LOSS IS A LOSS IS A LOSS and there is no way to hide it ... AND the ratepayers always cop it NEVER the perpetrators ... FORENSICaccounting OR MARKETING are not anything that can change THE FACTS or put a shine on BOVINdust!!!!]

COUNCILLORS NEED TO WAKE UP TO THEMSELVES

 

With this State Government election we need to be supporting candidates who have the bottle to fundamentally reform local governance. With 35 'representatives' in the lower house there is the scope.

Local Govt. is broken and the case for it being fundamentally rationalised is very strong looking at the waste and management's apparent ineptitude that is costing rate payers and tax payer far too much. Much of executive management lack the skills education and experience to deliver in accord with their gross salaries.

It is said that start by doing what’s necessary, then what’s possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible. However a start needs to be made on what is necessary and sooner rather than later thank you very much!

A LITTLE BIT OF IGNORED HISTORY AT YORK PARK

 

A Launcestonian with a memory alerts the  Concerned Launcestonian Network  of another little bit of fine print that is being conveniently suppressed by Town Hall management.

The land title for York Park includes the area of land known as Elizabeth Gardens. These gardens also include a memorial to workers who died at work, and never to return home.

So, it apparently turns out that a piece of land that was gifted by the then Queen – therefore the name – to the Public of Launceston in perpetuity. Far from being mindful of any of this management has, and is now, proposing to regifted it to a State Govt authority with apparently no accountability to the previously gifted public.

And, as it is turning out, the State Govt authority could well 'flog off' this little land to a 'developer' for say a car sales yard, a pub cum bottle shop, or goodness knows what. 

Sadly, the 'manager/s' proposing this might well be called a 'blowin' of the kind that appear from elsewhere and disappear to elsewhere carrying away gleaned wealth to be spent elsewhere to add insult to injury.

To top it off, this class of blowin seduces elected representatives that their 'economic rationalism' cuts the mustard. That can only be so for uncritical thinkers without a moral compass. They know the price of many things but sadly not the 'value' of anything.

Being a successful politician is not anything to do making profits. it's actually about making a positive impact on people's lives and delivering dividends – social and cultural dividends.

YORK PARK: BE ALERT, BE ALRMED, BE VERY VERY ALARMED

The ink has dried on an agreement the City of Launceston and the state government say means the North is "no worse off" when York Park, currently branded as UTAS Stadium, is signed over to Stadiums Tasmania.

A draft memorandum of understanding (MoU) was endorsed by councillors late 2023 and officially signed by Launceston mayor Matthew Garwood and Minister for Stadia and Events Nic Street on February 4.


The non-legally binding document detailed the number of AFL and AFLW games the council expected to take place at the venue the new peak body takes ownership of the stadium.

Cr Garwood said although Stadiums Tasmania was required by legislation to host sport and other events at the stadium, the MoU showed the government and council meant business.

"The Stadiums Tasmania Act 2022 specifies that Stadiums Tasmania must continue to attract and deliver international and national sporting, entertainment and events content," he said.

"We're hopeful this MoU will give additional assurance to our community that the council and state government are committed to growing content at UTAS Stadium under a new management model, long into the future."

Minister for Stadia and Events Nic Street said the council and government worked closely on the agreement, and it would ensure the stadium would remain "the premier venue in the North".

"One of the things that the council wanted to lock in was content," Mr Street said.

"We were as keen as they were on locking in content for the North of the state.

"We were more than comfortable to develop this MoU to make sure that there was an understanding about a minimum level of content for UTAS Stadium going forward, which we were really keen to sign because we want to demonstrate our commitment to supporting the North."


Mr Street said the AFL - which has the final say on the number of games UTAS Stadium - was "well aware" of the discussions between the council and the state government about the MoU.

The mayor said the commitment by the state government, and the future transfer of the stadium to Stadiums Tasmania, would lead to a better outcome for Launceston ratepayers.

Cr Garwood said Launceston would still reap the economic rewards of high-profile events, but the costs of managing the stadium would be borne by all those who used it and just Launceston residents.

"It's going to remain a community asset," he said.

"The $30 million that's injected to the local economy is still going to inject directly into the local economy.

"Along Invermay Road, for example, the Bizy Bee and those businesses are still going to reap the benefits that are associated with events at the stadium.

"If anything that's going to increase as Stadiums Tasmania will be able to make deals and use the relationships they're able to build through their specific skill sets that we just haven't accessed at a local level at the moment."

END

COMMENT: Here we go again the tail is wagging the dog and all the signs indicate that it is meant to be confusing. Indeed, there is ever indication that what is going on away from the public gase is a Machiavellian stunt albeit involving players who do not really understand how they are being manipulated

Machiavellianism is sneaky, cunning, and lacking in any kind of moral code. In the 1500s the Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli, wrote the political treatise that encourages “the end justifies the means” behavior, especially among politicians.

Here the end game is trick Launcestonians into divesting themselves, by remote control, of all they invested in York Park – that is financially, socially and culturally. Who wind what? That is open to speculation but as surely as GOD made little apples there is no doubt about who loses!

This initiative to GIFT York Park to a self-accountable statutory authority in every sense of the word, it is alarming. Now with Council considering an 'management driven, strategic intitiative that too is alarming. Moreover, that this MOU is being sighed well away from the 'public gaze' that too smacks of the cunning that Machiavellianism perpetrates.

In Launceston there is a cohort of 'representatives' who seem to be happy enough with a quiet life and their stipend – relatively generous as they are. It is alarming that that this 'gifting initiative' has got this far without a meaningful consultation process and that the city's NEW COUNCILLORS have been by-and-large blind sided.

What is so very concerning is that it appears as if Council's Management has in this case and other blended and blanded their role with 'governance's' role.

Currently it noticeable with too few exceptions, that deloved decision making turns out to be a bungle. Everywhere, if you look, one can see incompetence rampant, and incompetence triumphant. Sadly, one has to accepted the universality of incompetence.

It is also concerning that while staff increases and shuffles may produce a temporary improvement, in the end, the promotion process eventually produces its effect on the newcomers and they too, rise to their levels of incompetence and become oblivious to their failings.

Sadly, the appeal processes are, by design, financially debilitating with lawyers picnicking at the expense of people trying to protect their interests and as the saying goes... "laughing all the way to the bank"!

PLEASE CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

.

A NEW BRIDGE OVER THE kanamalukaTAMAR OR NOT!?

 

IN THE EXAMINER ... Tasmanian Labor said an update on the planned Tamar River Bridge was "long overdue."

The project was first floated by the state government in 2018.

Last year Infrastructure Minister Michael Ferguson announced a business case for the bridge was nearing completion, despite it being promised in early 2023.

The case is essential for the request of $320 million from the federal government for the $400 million project.

Tasmanian Labor leader Rebecca White called on Mr Ferguson to deliver an update.

"The Liberals have been talking about this project for five years now," Ms White said.

"But we've seen very little in terms of progress from a government that's far better at kicking the can down the road than getting things done."

Mr Ferguson said the government had committed $80 million towards the construction of a second Tamar River crossing between the West Tamar Highway and the East Tamar Highway north of University Way in Newnham.

"We expect the final business case to be provided to the commonwealth government in coming weeks," Mr Ferguson said.

"I am excited to share our advanced plans with for the community at the same time."

END

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKEtoTKULyk

The big question here on what advice was this $80MILLION commitment made and under what circumstance. As is often said in politics, this is all about "blowing smoke" in the expectation that it will save a a drowning politician. That it might be said now, well it is probably on the money!

WATCH THIS SPACE!

PLANNING, MEDIATION AND BUREAUCRATIC LOCAL GOVERNANCE'S WASTEFULNESS

 

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS AN EARLIER POST

OPINION: In releasing this information there is a hint of Council’s Manager of Development- MoD- (Ex-Planning Officer) subliminally defending the status quo. If that is to do with defending a livelihood rather than conceding that there are other ways to achieve better decision making that needs to be called out that is concerning.

Albeit possibly in an unguarded moment, the MoD once asserted that ‘cultural landscaping’ was not something governance (AKA Planning Authorities) rather it happens all by itself. Possibly cultural landscapes are GOD’S WORK and if this figured in the rationale it’s a concept that should be tested at a conference of professional ‘placemakers’ to test its veracity.

In Launceston as elsewhere every ‘development’ seeking Planning Authority endorsement is primarily to do with placemaking and cultural landscaping. At its best ‘placedness’, cultural sensibilities, community aspirations and social issues come into play. Autocratic bureaucratic assertions of RULE X sub-clause Y are essentially oblivious to this.

Sadly, we live in the Managerial Age, in a world where administrative imperatives prevail. The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens celebrated in his novels. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps because in those places we see the outcome of unfettered autocracy.

The ‘evil’ is conceived and ordered – moved, seconded, carried, and minuted – around tables in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted meeting places and conceived in the offices that facilitate and drive the decision making. The ‘evil’ is perpetrated by quiet men who wear suits and ties, who cut their fingernails and generally have shaven faces and do not actually need to raise their voices. Naturally enough, the symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern. Think 1984!

It turns out that there is a fiery gateway to hell on earth, an abyss, and what’s more it was created by careless governance and continues due to bureaucratic ineptitude … See https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/the-gates-of-hell-turkmenistan

It also turns out, and sadly so, that government is three fourths parasitic with the other fourth being to do with stupidity and fumbling around in dark places. Cultural landscaping should/could be about creating power and private resources for all in society by destroying bureaucratic and monopolistic control of a community.

That the possibility of mediation does not appear to be a possibility under the managerial status quo where it seems corporate developers are given free kicks whenever they ask for one. Good transparent accountable planning NIL …Investment driven development 4!