Council asked to approved major turf replacement at UTAS stadium

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4862345/utas-stadiums-turf-replacement-project/

Council asked to approved major turf replacement at UTAS stadium  Holly Monery 

The University of Tasmania Stadium playing field is in need of a complete reconstruction and the council will vote on the purchase of turf stabliser at Monday’s meeting...............  The exact cost of the project is being discussed in a closed session of council but it will be at least $250,000............... The council is being asked to waive the requirement to call public tenders for the supply of materials associated with the reconstruction of the playing surface “based on the unavailability of competitive alternate suppliers able to provide the required product”............... About 22,000 square metres of turf stabiliser is required as a reinforcement material which acts as a binding sub-structure holding large turf segments together. .............. It will form part of a turf farm project to be run by the City of Launceston, which minimises the venue’s downtime while the reconstruction takes place............... The turf stabiliser will allow a new grass sporting surfaces to be grown remotely and then be harvested in sections to be transported and placed on site while maintaining healthy and viable turf............... Using the proposed approach, the field can be used within days of the new playing surface being laid............... According to Monday’s council agenda, by the time the University of Tasmania Stadium surface reconstruction is complete the current playing surface will have been in use for 20 years.

QESTIONS ARISING
Some question’s the aldermen attending next Monday’s meeting will need to be able to answer for themselves or anyone investigating Launceston City Councils operations down the track,

1.  What is the actual need to carry out this and why hasn’t been articulated anywhere? 
2. What is the actual need to divert from best practice tendering process on this occasion?
3. Are there any inferences, uncomfortable inferences, that can be drawn in regard to this proposal?
4. Is there any substance to rumours circulating in the community surrounding ‘council contracts’ being “unattractive to tender for”
5. Which contractor(s?) is under consideration in this instance and what relationship do they have with Council or Council staff?
6. Does this contractor have a track record with Council as a suppliers and what is their known capacity to fulfill the requirements of this contract? 
7. Is there anyone on Council (Aldermen or staffer) who might have some kind of conflict of interest? If so what and in what context? 
8. How competitive is the projected $250K cost and how has it been tested? 
9. What are the actual benefits to ratepayers in regard to Council operating a “turf farm” in competition with an competitive outside operator or farmer? 
10. Who is operating, or is intending to operate, Council’s turf farm and what expertise do they bring to the operation? 
11. What risks are involved in Council running a turf farm and how have they been assessed and by whom? 
12. When and how does Council intend to provide answers to the questions? 
13. Can or will Council guarantee that it will continue to make decisions that raise serious concerns in the wider community in camera and behind closed doors?

Presumably this state of affairs comes about as a consequence of SECTION 62 of Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act that states, “The general manager may do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act.” The implementation of this provision in this instance at least raises serious concerns as there are strong accountability arguments that ratepayers are not being dealt with fairly or in an open and transparent way.

If that matter proceeds in the way indicated by the press report it would be more tan reasonable that serious independent inquiry be set up along the lines indicated by Basil Fitch in his Open Letter to the Premier.

DEVELOPMENT, ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

CONTEXT Bureaucratically coming up against Launceston City Council can be a rather negative experience and it need not be. There was a time when people were proud to call themselves ‘public servants’ because they knew that were delivering services to the public.

In regard to ‘council planning matters’ and the lack of transparency it is all very interesting. So far as pecuniary interests go and the matters outlined in the following messages, they background not only the content of an email to aldermen/council, the whole issue of accountability comes into focus. 

This all came to attention through several Speak Up Launceston chats some time ago.

How timely is it that Launceston’s Council comes under scrutiny

 ...................

XY Aug from A: “Thanks. LCC response was if owner and council address Section 13.0 in Planning Scheme no need for DA etc. I am just amazed by this. ................... Council has no concerns re discharge into Creek which goes directly into Tamar and adjacent to a breeding habitat!! ................... Sorry the more I am forced to deal with the Council the more I feel like moving. I’m about to ask them why they pruned my trees -yes were overhanging fence onto nature strip -but we have no footpaths and we all walk on the road when out and walking. LCC spent a week in street pruning trees from Council nature strips and did a good job then they used a excavator to clean out gutters and decided that an excavator would be a great way to prune several of my trees and that of my neighbours. ................... Typical LCC no indication of planned or current works on their works website and no letter boxing to say “hey we are in your area and will be working and might prune overhanging vegetation’. Even Aurora had curtsy to letterbox us to say please trip a tree under a powerlines and here is a list of approved tree trimers. 

XU Aug from X to A. “You are not alone re needing to get rid of the grime after dealings with the Council. So many people are so disillusioned, to put it mildly. And who cares about the environment? The white gum die back is really serious, even blind Freddy can see that, not to mention loss of habitat. ................... How sad to see the Grey Goss hawk nest go. ................... I have a friend who is an ALP member and they have just set up a group called LEAN, something to do with the environment and [this person] is going to the first meeting of this new group in Canberra on Friday. ................... [They] asked if [this person] could have a chat about any enviro issues that I might think of. I have a couple, and I will add this one to the list - i.e the attitude and disregard of local govt planners to environment and habitat, and Gutwein's state planning scheme. ................... Apart from the effects on your property, if that development has house and property water running off into [xx] creek, that means storm water, fresh water. Is the creek salt water? What will be the enviro damage of increased water flow, especially in wet weather like this week. ................... So two points - no opportunity provided anywhere to have a say or any input; and what are the enviro effects. (Another planning - enviro matter for Wilderness Society and now LEAN). My poor friend, I already give [this person] a hard time about Ross Hart being conned and wishy-washy just to get pre-selection, because why else would a lawyer allow himself to be fooled. [This person] is opposed to the Utas move, and says so and her partner is particularly vocal about it. ................... And then there is still that matter of aldermen and/or council staff pecuniary interests and conflicts of interest. As we know there is currently no list of aldermen's pecuniary interests. At least one former alderman agreed there is probably a need for one. ................... Might be something for Launceston Concerned Citizens blog and the whole issue of governance. ................... X 

16 Aug Hi, Just had to BCC you into that. I'm amazed that you can build a house and Council doesn't have to advertise or subject application to a DA. ................... Two other houses in same street had to do DA's. But not this one ?? I must link Wilderness Society in as this subdivision has disturbed soil and increased White Gum die back in this section. Not to mention the Grey Goss Hawk who lost her nest when tree chopped down. ................... More I have to deal with LCC the more showers I need ! 

X to D XS Aug 2017: This is shocking. People are being treated so shabbily. What to do? One just feels so helpless in the face of all of this. The Wilderness Society held public meetings a while back about the new state planning scheme and warning about this kind of thing. ................... Also, if less than three representations (ie only one or two or none) are made about a DA, it doesn't go to council, the planner can make the decision. So if you are the only one who puts in a submission, it also doesn't mean anything. If you want it to go to council and you're not sure whether anyone else is putting in a submission, it pays to write three separate submissions, and send them in either under different names or companies or groups. ................... If I get time today I might have to write something up on this for Speak Up Launceston and for Launceston Concerned Citizens. ................... They are currently very busy on the matter of councils and planning type issues in general. They are less than impressed with Peter Gutwein's behaviour in such matters and that Gutwein was having too much to say over councils. X.

Aug D I M, Town Planner: Dear TP, Thank-you for the reply. Am I reading this correctly I can build a house and if the Council believes the plans meet the Scheme no one needs to be informed on adjoining properties nor a planning application made? ................... So is this why I can not locate an application on the LCC property eTracker? ................... So this development will be discharging house and property water runoff into the [XYZ] Creek which will increase the flow rate and volume of the creek which will have a direct impact upon my property and I do not need to be consulted? ................... So if no Development Application has to be made how does one object to a building if no development application made? ................... On what grounds (specifically) was it decided that no development application had to be made? 

XAug 2017, City Council Planning Queries wrote: Hi D, I am emailing further to your enquiry regarding [XYZ] ABC. A building approval was issued [AA} June 2017. The plans met the residential requirements under the Rural Living Zone in the Planning Scheme and as such no planning permit was required. As no permit was required, it was not necessary to inform adjoining land owners. Regards, ...................Town Planner  City of Launceston 

From D to Council planner .......... Dear Council, We are wondering if a Development Application as been approved or made for possibly [XYZ] ABC, that is behind our property. ................... The reason we ask is a house is being built by [BBB] Builders and we do not recall receiving a DA notification or it being posted on the Council website . . . The house is adjacent to the approved DA00KK/2017 ................... We know about DA00KK/2017as we saw the DA application sign on the property fence but that is not the location of the house currently being built. Regards, D 

BASIL FITCH: Media Release

Today I announce that I have written an OPEN LETTER to the premier of Tasmania in regard to my deep concerns to  do Launceston City Council's accountability. CLICK HERE

I have placed my letter on the Internet and I ask anyone reading it, and who shares my concerns, to also write to the Premier telling him of their own issues to do with Local Govt. in Tasmania and Launceston's Council.

I have come to the position that Local Govt in Tasmania is at a crisis point and that no council more than Launceston City Council is in deeper trouble when it comes to accountability.

As a consequence of my arriving at this understanding, and having discussed the issues with people around me, I am persuaded that Imust either put up for election for the next council election in 2018 or shut up. 

I have decided to stand even though I will be 81 at the time of the election. If elected I will donate my council allowance to charity. 

In the meantime, I will start work on putting together a team of independent candidates and mentors who will stand alongside me. Also, I will be working with anyone who wishes to become a part of this exercise torecruit people to work on the team.

Over the coming days, weeks and months I will be sending out more information about my concerns and my candidacy.

For more information:

• Phone: 03 – 6344 2688
• eMail: fitchbasil@gmail.com

Accountability And Performance ­ St John Street bus stop vote not supported by all City of Launceston aldermen and more still

ALSO SEE: https://lcc63.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/st-john-street-bus-stop-vote-not.html

From the Examiner .... Moving the St John Street bus stop is still possible according to City of Launceston Alderman Hugh McKenzie. “Clearly, we currently have ended nearly back where we started and whilst I see some benefits in the pedestrian linkage from the Quadrant and the sense of moving that alignment away from the current bus stop I haven't given up on looking at other options,” he said. ...... Ald McKenzie was one of four council representatives absent from last week’s meeting, when the council voted 6-2 to reaffirm its plan to move the bus stops closer to York Street. ...... If any of the four aldermen had been present, and voted against the motion, the council would have been forced to find a new solution regarding a petition submitted by retailers in the area. ......  “I have championed the moving of the bus stops –http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2088215/mckenzies-push-to-relocate-city-bus-stops/ –  from there current location [and] initially I pushed for the move to Civic Square in front of St Andrews Church, which met some resistance from the church due to access issues for funerals and weddings,” Ald McKenzie said. ...... “The redevelopment of Civic Square would also give active space for those waiting for a bus to utilise the public open space and library. ......  “I also pushed for Patterson Street but again this met resistance from Pilgrim Launceston Uniting Church.”......  Deputy Mayor Rob Soward, who did not attend the meeting, could not confirm how he would have voted. ...... "Had I been there last week I would have asked questions in open council to ensure all consultations had occurred and obviously if speakers were present to hear concerns ... before I finalised my view,” he said....... Ald Soward said he had previously suggested moving the stops to opposite St John's Anglican Church or near the public buildings and Civic Square.

So this is the news after Ald. McKenzie get back to Launceston after his holiday in paradise. The fact that he wasn’t present for the decision making and the punters have ‘gone all ugly on him’ while he was looking the other way is, it seems, a bit of a shock. But as he says “I haven't given up on looking at other options” .

Ald. McKenzie wasn’t alone in his absenteeism and Ald. Soward suggests that despite supporting a different location for the bus stops he would have needed to be around the table to get a sense of where the decision should go. He makes no comment about consulting with the community or stakeholders and maybe it’d be superfluous. It begs the question, who among the aldermen were (and are) engaged with their constituency on this (or any other) issue?

It’s now known that the Mayor received a petition from a number of business people and that after the horse had apparently bolted he was advocating a decision shift on the strength of what was apparently a  rather small number of petitioners. In contrast over a thousand petitioners called a public meeting and moved a motion that council shouldn’t be gifting public land to the university to enable it to move four kilometres. The Mayor on that occasion, in concert with the aldermen and the General Manager, decided to ignore that meeting’s advice and went ahead as if it didn’t matter, In fact that meeting mattered as much as if it never happened.
    
When it comes down to it what is at issue here right now, its quite apparent that the lack meaningful and appropriate consultation processes capped of by a disinclination to be accountable to council’s constituency is increasingly front of mind. In fact the proposition that aldermen might be allergic to the very idea of accountability increasingly has currency.

The issue is not about the location of a few bus stops actually. It is in fact just on of the details that haven’t been given the appropriate level of consultative planning involved in the expenditure of $20million borrowed on behalf of ratepayers. More to the point this money needs to, apparently, be spent very quickly. It is little wonder that corners might need to be cut and that all manner of shonkiness might expose itself along the way.

The argument seems to be that, quite aside from ratepayers needing to look out for a rate hike down the track, some of this money is destined to stick somewhere, or rub off, or fall someone’s way, whatever. The question does have to be asked, just who are the expected beneficiaries here and where do they live? If it is supposed to be the ratepayers, just how ands over what timeframe?

It appears as if the Minister somehow has ‘something at stake’ here. However, Launceston’s ratepayers may well find themselves paying higher rates for less or lesser services and there’ll be little or nothing that they’ll be able to do about it except to pay up. Where does the Minister’s interests reside? Is it to do with the assurance of accountable and transparent local governance? Is it to do state-wide politics? Would it be unreasonable to expect that the Minister’s interest might be here with Launceston’s ratepayers capacity to meet the commitments he, in concert with council, have visited upon them?

There are other questions arising here, given the level of expenditure, that beg an answer. Firstly, just how does this $20million expenditure fit within council’s strategic plan? Flowing from that, where can ratepayers get access to the project plan informing this expenditure? Consequent to that, where can ratepayers gain access to the business case for this additional and significant expenditure on the city’s infrastructure?

The level of background dysfunctionalism at Launceston City Council is concerning. It might well be the equal to the kind of disquiet that brought Huon and Glenorchy Councils to the Minister’s attention and ultimately undone. However, it appears as if the Minster is engaged with Launceston’s council much more deeply than either of these councils which, superficially at least, suggests that Launceston’s council might well avoid the kind of disquiet he has for the affairs of  Huon and Glenorchy Councils.

St John Street bus stop vote not supported by all City of Launceston aldermen and more still

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4851176/bus-stop-vote-could-have-been-different/?cs=95

Moving the St John Street bus stop is still possible according to City of Launceston Alderman Hugh McKenzie. “Clearly, we currently have ended nearly back where we started and whilst I see some benefits in the pedestrian linkage from the Quadrant and the sense of moving that alignment away from the current bus stop I haven't given up on looking at other options,” he said.

Ald McKenzie was one of four council representatives absent from last week’s meeting, when the council voted 6-2 to reaffirm its plan to move the bus stops closer to York Street. http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4840173/mayor-speaks-out-over-st-john-street-bus-stops/

• Previous  ... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4851176/bus-stop-vote-could-have-been-different/?cs=95#
  

If any of the four aldermen had been present, and voted against the motion, the council would have been forced to find a new solution regarding a petition submitted by retailers in the area.

“I have championed the moving of the bus stops – http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2088215/mckenzies-push-to-relocate-city-bus-stops/ –  from there current location [and] initially I pushed for the move to Civic Square in front of St Andrews Church, which met some resistance from the church due to access issues for funerals and weddings,” Ald McKenzie said.

RELATED: Peter Gutwein slams council's bus stop project ... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4850474/gutwein-slams-bus-project/

“The redevelopment of Civic Square would also give active space for those waiting for a bus to utilise the public open space and library. 

“I also pushed for Patterson Street but again this met resistance from Pilgrim Launceston Uniting Church.”

Deputy Mayor Rob Soward, who did not attend the meeting, could not confirm how he would have voted.

"Had I been there last week I would have asked questions in open council to ensure all consultations had occurred and obviously if speakers were present to hear concerns ... before I finalised my view,” he said.

Ald Soward said he had previously suggested moving the stops to opposite St John's Anglican Church or near the public buildings and Civic Square.

RELATED STORIES:

• St John streetscape changes endorsed | Photos ... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4623199/st-john-streetscape-changes-endorsed-photos/

• Business owners angry at council's bus stop plan ... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4711304/owners-bus-stop-fury/

• Launceston mayor calls for a re-design of St John Street bus stops ... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4840173/mayor-speaks-out-over-st-john-street-bus-stops/
  

EDITORS NOTE: Well you do have to wonder, and worry, where aldermen get to when the chips are down. Ald. McKenzie wasn’t only missing for the meeting that missed an opportunity to listen more carefully to his constituents but along with others he has been present when the Council has made a whole bunch of decisions that will no doubt cost ratepayers when it comes to paying their rates down the track.

Launceston’s rates are already about $500 over the odds in Tasmania. Now that’s in a city where approx 50% of residents and ratepayers are in receipt of a social security payment. It’s the same jurisdiction where youth unemployment and under employment is at crisis levels. It’s in a State where we now know that about 75,000 people live on or below the poverty line and great many of them will found in Launceston.

The Mayor has been out and about talking up the debt level he and the aldermen have led the council, and thus the ratepayers, into. The Minister it seems has held out the money bag and the aldermen it seems have said ‘all right’. It now looks like the General Manager had done all the cutting and drying for that decision – and quite probably on his own or possibly telling the Mayor sometime before the meeting. Rolling over in this way is as they say “a bad look.”

The city has taken on extraordinary debt without, it seems, meaningful aldermanic consultation. However the aldermen have agreed and their decisions are upon their head but their constituency must ‘pay up’. A long look needs to be taken at their performance individually and collectively. When they take on loans for projects, and expenditures, that need to completed quickly one has to worry about fiscal decision making at Launceston’s Town Hall.

Ald. McKenzie can kick and scream all he likes but if he and other absentee aldermen want to be taken seriously they need to get their act together and be accountable and more accountable than they’ve held themselves in the life of this council elected three years or so ago.

If the Minister was not so deeply implicated in the funding of projects being talked up by the Mayor he might well be visiting the kind of discipline on Launceston Council as he has done for Huon and Glenorchy Councils. It would seem that there’s more to come here.

INFORMATION ALERT: Launceston City Deal Document

This existence of this document has just been drawn to the attention of a
ratepayer but the Ratepayers Association has not received a copy. 

                                        • Is it a confidential in-house document? IF so why so?
                                        • IF not where and how might a ratepayer get a copy?

WATCH THIS SPACE

Why move UTAS: UTAS answers your relocation questions

http://www.examiner.com.au/

Why move UTAS: UTAS answers your relocation questions
Hayden Johnson 14 Aug 2017, 10:01 a.m.

When will UTAS release consultation details?

Professor Adams: The community consultation process around Inveresk is underway at the moment following the release of the masterplan and the final reports are likely to come out early or mid-October.
What does the parking model look like?

Mr McKee: We’ve been working now for over 18 months with our key partners, particularly the Launceston City Council because of the significance of this issue.

That’s included some quite significant traffic flow and parking studies.

We can say there will be an increase, an overall increase in parking capability around the broader site precinct.

Part of that is thinking about it rather than a traditional, providing just enough parks in a development application – how do we think of this as a precinct and actually develop a parking strategy that helps alleviate some of the potential traffic congestion and possibly even existing traffic congestion.

There’s a piece of work at the moment that’s underway to finalise what David talked about in terms of those studies that have been going quite some time.

How do we manage parking as a precinct, not just as a university?

That takes into account events and where we might not need parkings on weekends then that is able to be utilised in event mode.

It’s really maximising parking.

Professor Adams: It’s really quite important to think that most of the world's best practice university campuses tend to have a much higher proportion of people walking, bicycling, using shared transport options, public transport options.

We need to build in the appropriate incentives and facilities so that we don’t think of it primarily as a carparking issue but how can we create a campus that is much more attuned to where we’re heading in terms of sustainability, in terms of connectivity to the city.

Is there a time on the development application?

Professor Adams: Not yet.

We’re looking for the feedback on the masterplan <http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4797352/sneak-peek-at-utas-master-plan/>  at the moment – that’s our key priority.

That will then inform the design process which then sits alongside the development of the development application.

So we’re focussed on the masterplan feedback and that’s what we’re really encouraging people and looking for other people to encourage people to look at the information that’s out there.

UTAS $300m Plans unveiled  ... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3784825/utas-300m-plans-unveiled/

How much of the construction work will go to Tasmanian firms?

Mr McKee: We don’t have a predetermined figure around that but suffice to say we’re working hard. It’s part of our grant deeds with both the federal and state government. It’s part of our commitment to the community here that we will work in the interests with this community and do our best to create the environment where local providers will have the best chance to participate.

Why didn’t UTAS use a Tasmanian architecture firm for the concept plan?

Mr McKee: It went to open market and we chose the best tenderer. We still have to comply with procurement requirements – at all levels. Even though it’s a Melbourne-based firm, part of them coming here has been a commitment to helping engage with local firms. At the blunt edge it sounds like it was all about an external firm and that was done on a procurement basis and the best tender but we’ve tried to manage that so there’s a local outcome as well. It is that challenge for us. Experience and excellence and local procurement, and trying to find the best possible match of those so that we don’t compromise either too much.

Do you envisage that will be an issue through construction?

Mr McKee: It’s a balancing act.

Professor Adams: It’s also probably useful to note it’s a balancing act within what we’re doing because we have fairly significant builds bother here at Inveresk, at West Park and in Hobart. Whilst people expect us to move ahead quickly on all three fronts – we have to stage that, particularly if we want to maximise opportunities for Tasmanian involvement. If we tried to do all three at once we simply wouldn’t have within our Tasmanian industries the capability.

How will the move improve student education?

Professor Adams: By providing literally the world’s best facilities students are likely to be attracted here and have the best teaching and research facilities and importantly the best staff. In terms of the facility itself, it will attract the staff and the infrastructure that will enhance learning. Part of the want to come here is having a campus that is open, friendly, linked to the city doesn’t look like a traditional university but a place they want to spend time. It’s about a different way of teaching, it’s about world’s best practice capus, it’s about the connectivity to the city and about focusing at all times on the student experience. The best way to explain our masterplan is the primary principle driving it is; what will create the best student experience?

State government transfers UTAS $10 million for university's relocation ... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4761474/utas-receives-first-of-state-government-funding-for-relocation/

What has the feedback been like?

Professor Adams: Most of the feedback we’re getting at the moment is really constructive. The opportunity to really articulate this has been helpful because people still are struggling to understand the, why move? That has been the key bit of feedback that’s come through the last couple of weeks.
Give your feedback

Engagement sessions will be held on August 18 from 11am to 2pm at the Brisbane Street Mall and on August 19 from 10am to 1pm at Alexandra Walk, Seaport, outside Peppers Resort.

SPEAK UP LAUNCESTON : What Launcestonians are saying and thinking

GO TO: https://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpLaunceston/
People in the Concerned Citizens Network would be well advised to
follow  SPEAK UP LAUNCESTON and share their views there so as
Aldermen and other politicians can see what people are
SAYING & THINKING

REALITY ALERT: WASTE MANAGEMENT & RESOURCE RECOVERY

REALITY ALERT: WASTE MANAGEMENT & RESOURCE RECOVERY

From The Economist – The latest crackdown on foreign rubbish will disrupt the global garbage trade CHINA dominates international trade in many goods, but few more than waste for recycling. It sucked in more than half the world's exports of scrap copper and waste paper in 2016, and half of its used plastic.

All in all, China spent over $18bn on imports of rubbish last year. America, meanwhile, is an eager supplier. In 2016nearly a quarter of America's biggest exporters by volume were recyclers of paper, plastic or metal. Topping the list was America Chung Nam, a California-based supplier of waste paper which last year exported a whopping 333,900 containers, almost all of them to China.

This may soon change. On July 1st China told the World Trade Organisation that by the end of the year, it will no longer accept imports of 24 categories of solid waste as part of a government campaign against yang laji or "foreign garbage".

The Ministry of Environmental Protection says restricting such imports will protect the environment and improve public health. But the proposed import ban will disrupt billions of dollars in trade. Recyclers worry that other categories of waste may soon receive the same treatment.
Imports of rubbish have helped feed China's voracious appetite for raw materials.

It is often cheaper to recycle scrap copper, iron and steel, as well as waste paper and plastic, than to make such materials from scratch, especially when commodity prices are high. So as commodity prices rose during the 2000S, the burgeoning trade in waste benefited both exporters, who made money from previously worthless trash, and importers, who gained access to a reliable stream of precious feedstock.

Between 1995 and 2016 Chinese imports of waste grew tenfold, from 4.5m to 45m tonnes. But imports of recyclable waste are often dirty, poorly sorted or contaminated with hazardous substances such as lead or mercury. In 1996 factories in Xinjiang 'inadvertently imported more than 100 tonnes of radioactive metal from Kazakhstan. The
following year an American businessman was convicted of smuggling over 200 tonnes of unsorted rubbish labelled as waste paper. Even when the intended material is imported, it is often recycled improperly,

In 2002 the authorities faced widespread criticism after a documentary _showed workers in Guangdong province crudely dismantling discarded electronic devices and dumping the toxic remains
into a river. Officials may have been spurred into the latest restrictions by the release of Plastic China, an unflattering documentary about the plastic-recycling industry which was screened at Sundance, a grand American film festival, in January The government had already been campaigning to block imports of illegal and low-quality waste under a crackdown called Operation Green Fence launched in 2013.

Customs officials have ramped up inspections of scrap metal for circuit boards, plastic for syringes and other medical waste, and waste paper for plastic or wood. Since then, China's imports of waste have fallen sharply (see chart). Whereas Green Fence was aimed at improving the quality of imported waste, the government's latest move bans several types of waste outright, threatening some
$5bn in trade.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection says the ban will cut pollution.

But most of the waste consumed by China's recycling industry comes from domestic sources, not imports, notes Joshua Goldstein of the University of Southern California: "This is not really where the problem lies." Indeed, recyclers who rely on imports may now switch to grubbier
domestic stock. "this is going to be very hard on our industry," says Adina Renee Adler of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries. As it is, Operation Green Fence has put lots of small recyclers out of business. Exporters will suffer too.

Derek Kellenberg of the University of Montana says, "My suspicion is that the lower-quality stuff is more likely to end up in a landfill."

Would that be in a local landfill somewhere near you??

ALSO

 GENEVA (Reuters) - China notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) on Tuesday that it would stop accepting shipments of rubbish such as waste plastic and paper as part of a campaign against "foreign garbage". ... The import ban, which will enter into force by the end of 2017, will also cover slag from steelmaking, and many kinds of waste wool, ash, cotton and yarn.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-environment-idUSKBN1A31JI

KPMG Shared Services Study to save councils millions .... BUT ONLY THREE!!

GO TO: http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4834719/resource-sharing-mooted/

“Sharing more resources could save northern Tasmanian councils millions of dollars and ease rate rises.
KPMG released a Shared Services Study investigating how eight councils in the state’s north could better share resources and services to improve their performance and capacity.

Amalgamations and boundary readjustments were also discussed at the meeting of mayors and general managers on Friday afternoon, although they did not feature in the report.

The region covered by West Tamar, George Town, Dorset, Break O-Day, Northern Midlands, Meander Valley, Flinders and Launceston City councils represents about one third of Tasmania’s land mass and population.

City of Launceston Mayor Albert van Zetten said the report showed possibilities of savings, which depended on the “good will” of all the councils.

“Rates would obviously not have to go up as significantly and that’s something that’s very important … if we can have savings in other areas, we can then ensure that maybe we can just reduce the rates,” Cr van Zetten said.

He did not rule out amalgamations or readjusting boundaries. “I’m not going to hide from that, but this is a first step, it’s a good start,” Cr van Zeeten said.

The report found by expanding resource sharing and starting joint contracts, about $3.3 million could be saved each year
Councils and general managers needed to start to discuss which areas they wanted to work together on, he said.

“By looking at the areas where we do thing a bit different, we could work together better.” Collectively, the northern councils employ 854 full-time equivalent staff, of which more than half, 431, are employed by City of Launceston.

West Tamar Mayor Christina Holmdahl said she was very confident resource sharing could save the council money. Her council and George Town Council both supported amalgamation with a feasibility study anticipated to finish by the end of the month, she said.”

RELATED STORIES:

Mayors prepare to share http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2996803/mayors-prepare-to-share/
• Councils look into resource sharing http://www.examiner.com.au/story/1400241/northern-councils-look-into-resource-sharing/
  

NOTE: This actually has to be a joke being played on ratepayers!!

Consider it! $3.3 Mil divided between these councils will amount to something like $30 a ratepayer while Launceston's rates are $500 above the others currently, something like 50% of Launceston's ratepayer receive a social benefit of some kind, youth unemployment is very high, etc. etc.

Just think what the measly and tokenistic $30 will mean IF it gets to be passed on ... 2 casks of wine to drown ones sorrows with ... not even a bus fare to Hobart ... not even a tank of petrol ...not even compensation for the annual rate rise.

Constituents should be asking their Aldermen/Councillors to please tell them that this is really serious and true. Then ask the business people among them if they think its meaningful. AND if there is a Chartered Accountant among them, ask them for their advice as to the reports value.

Local Government in Tasmania is Very Broken

The cat is escaping the bag the political 'triumvirate' – politicians, public servants and media moguls – have kept it in for such a long time. Likewise, stories are getting out and there is nothing at all that is new about any of that except for the players and just what it is that they are getting away with. 

As time has passed they –  the triumvirate – have become emboldened and individually, as well as collectively, they have taken their ‘power greed’ to new levels. The purposes this ‘power’ has been applied to is sometimes mystifying but that doesn’t discount it in any way. It really gets to be worrying when their fellow travellers and personal networks start to expose themselves and posing uncomfortable questions. 

There is little doubt that in Tasmania in the 21st Century there is no justification whatsoever for 29 Councils given Tasmania’s relatively stagnant population of 500 thousand. The population is quite simply unable to provide the representative personnel with the wherewithal to be able to deliver the outcome required by the wider community and to be truly accountable. The evidence clearly points to that being so. 

The Local Government model in Tasmania is broken and it needs to be fixed and urgently. However, social media is expanding its reach to the machination of local governance issues and as the subscribers to the various forms become competent we can expect to see more and more. 

We probably can thank Donald Trump for alerting us to the ways we can bypass the dysfunctional and complicit ‘press' when it comes to whistle blowing.

THE POST "Hopefully this will bring to an early conclusion the ongoing delay I feel most Glenorchy ratepayers want to see the report in the Minister's hands and then appropriate action Ultimately we can look forward to the next scheduled Council election, while the competent Administrator gets the Council operating correctly so it can be handed over to the newly elected aldermen in good shape

http://www.themercury.com.au/…/adbb9df025962979af1af364c355…

Acting A-G Matthew Groom named in Supreme Court challenge to Board of Inquiry into Glenorchy City Council

Glenorchy City Council general manager Peter Brooks.Glenorchy City Council general manager Peter Brooks.
THE State Government has joined a lawsuit over the future of the Board of Inquiry into Glenorchy City Council.

The Council’s general manager Peter Brooks has taken Supreme Court action in a bid to stop the inquiry publishing a final report.

He says the Inquiry’s second Draft Report makes claims critical of his public and personal conduct.

Acting Attorney-General Matthew Groom. Picture: SAM ROSEWARNE
Paul Turner, the lawyer acting on behalf of the Board of Inquiry, successfully added Acting Attorney-General Matthew Groom as a party to the case after a request from the Crown.

Mr Turner said there was precedent that the State Government could become a party to the case where someone wanted to shut down the inquiry.

“The State, hence the Attorney-General, has an interest in seeing that proper justice is done,” he said.

Associate Justice Stephen Holt granted the request and adjourned the hearing until Wednesday to allow for suspended Glenorchy aldermen to make submissions.

He also said he would decide whether the information contained in the report would be heard in open court.

“The question of whether I should close this court does contain come complexities,” he said.

“If I decide that I make a suppression order it will affect people I need to hear from, the Glenorchy aldermen.

“What I want to do is send a notice to them so they will know what the application is about.”

Following the application being granted, Mr Groom said he wanted to ensure the report could be provided to Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein.

“The Acting Attorney-General is urging the Court to hear the matter as soon as possible with a view to securing the release of the Board of Inquiry’s report to the Minister for Local Government as soon as possible,” he said.

The investigation has been put on hold indefinitely and the suspended aldermen advised there was “no clear time frame for the inquiry’s conclusion” because of a further legal challenge to it in the Supreme Court.

The Mercury has been unable to confirm if the delay has been caused by Mr Brooks or whether other action was pending.

MORE: SUSPENDED MAYOR CALLS FOR COUNCIL TO BE SACKED

MORE: TIME TO END GLENORCHY COUNCIL FARCE

EDITORIAL: RATEPAYERS DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS

The inquiry, which began in October 2015, has been delayed several times and went to the Supreme Court last year when suspended Glenorchy alderman Jenny Branch-Allen launched legal action, arguing that the inquiry was engaged in an unfair process.

Last week the Mercury revealed some of the findings from the second Board of Inquiry report, which painted a damning picture of a dysfunctional council, a total breakdown between aldermen and senior staff and collusion among some members of the council.

Mr Brooks did not attend this morning’s hearing"

What are the signals that the system is broken?

•  Firstly, the number of dysfunctional Councils and ‘council operations’ must be a concern for anyone interested in accountable governance – I give you Huon, Glenorchy, Spring Bay, George Town, Launceston, collectively and singularly. 
• Secondly, General Managers applications of SECTIONS 62 & 65 of the Local Govt Act to wit, management assuming the authority of policy determination via various means not always in reflection of the Act. 
• Thirdly, the failure of various councils to appropriately and/or adequately consult with their constituency while seemingly privileging sectional interests via Machiavellian and circuitous means. 
• Fourthly, the abdication of aldermen/councillors in regard to playing their representational role towards meeting community needs and aspirations and especially so in regard to accountability – their own and the operational wing of councils. 
• Fifthly, the transfer of significant ‘public assets’ into the hands of corporate and private interest without there being rigorous consultation processes being put in place to test community acceptance and/or delivering upon accountability. 

And there is more still! When a Council levies rates $500 in excess of like properties elsewhere that has to be some kind of alarm. When on apparently ‘operational initiatives’ a council puts ratepayers’ debt liabilities beyond the reach of about half of its constituency there is reason for serious concern. When expertise is deemed to exist when the evidence for it is deficient there is serious reasons for apprehension.

Clearly its time for a root and branch review of Local Govt. in Tasmania and tweaking the current Act just will not cut it.