Saturday, 16 September 2017

Red tape, Richard Colbeck and Launceston's City Council

Contributions: How the short term rental market's two biggest players,
Airbnb and Stayz, impacted Tasmania's economy in the last year.

This agenda item for next Monday's Council meeting raises questions and quite probably more than are likely to be answered in the meeting. It is indeed "bemusing" that it might be Ald. Alexander who is making the running on this proposal. He is reportedly easily distracted from 'council business' when he is at the table and, apparently, as likely as not he can be found dashing off on more important business or 'twitering' during discussions he finds unimportant.

If Launceston's future can be seen as being more to do with tourism, and Airbnb accommodation is a part of that, and regulating this as a 'business activity' is in fact a State Govt. matter, it is unsurprising that questions about Ald. Alexander's 'interests' in the matter might arise.

Launceston's council operation has become charactorised by its blurring of its policymaking role and the council management's purpose. It is about time that the growing trend that's been especially in evidence over past few years was dealt with, and with some urgency. This blurring for whatever reason seems to suit management well enough and particularly so given that increasingly the Act virtually renders the elected representatives 'surplus to requirement'.

Ald. Alexander's intervention in the light of all this and his intervention in regard to 'Food Street' gets curiouser and curiouser. SEE: https://www.examiner.com.au/story/4896832/call-for-food-van-policy-at-city-council/?cs=95 Can these issues be linked – that is Airbnb and Food Street – and if there are links what are they?

Where are the broad scale and strategic policy determinations here? If this looks like a 'shot from the hip', is it just that, or is there something else going on here?

If there was a register of pecuniary interests such question might be more easily resolved. That is, other than under the protocol of declaring an interest in a matter. So, Richard Colbeck's bemusement is understandable as will be the constituency's bewilderment once these matters are given more scrutiny!  

Because of the blurring of the roles of management and the elected representatives, planning issues in Launceston all too easily become clouded in secrecy. In the end the wider community pays for the excesses of, and the aspirations of, developers.                                                                                                        

The Examiner's Story
Former federal tourism minister Richard Colbeck says he is "bemused" by a motion put forward at City of Launceston council to investigate its ability to regulate Airbnb, Stayz and other short-term accommodation facilities.

Mr Colbeck has been consulting privately with Stayz on both a state and national level.
He said attempting to regulate the innovation of the short-term accommodation industry was unnecessary and risked stifling innovation, as well as discouraging tourism in the region.
City of Launceston Alderman Darren Alexander put forward the notice of motion, to be considered in Monday's council meeting, asking the council to investigate its ability to administer regulation of Airbnb, Stayz and similar accommodation places.
Ald Alexander questioned whether the short-term rental market might discourage the larger traditional hotel sector from investing in the region.
Ald Alexander was contacted for comment on Friday.
New state regulations came into effect in July to regulate the short-term rental sector, reducing the amount of red tape people seeking to share their homes have to work through.
"Why is the instinct always to regulate up, when there is an opportunity to actually de-regulate some of the traditional sector?" Mr Colbeck said.
"What you're effectively doing is stifling innovation."
Mr Colbeck said the impact of the short-term rental accommodation sector on the traditional accommodation sector generated positive growth. He pointed to the rise of cheap airfares growing the airline economy and encouraging more people to fly as an example of a similar innovation growing the tourism economy.
A Deloitte report showed Airbnb brought in a contribution of $55 million to Tasmania's gross state product, and almost 600 jobs in 2015-2016. 
Across the state nearly 125,000 people stayed at Airbnbs through the year, spending $86 million during their visits.
Stayz visitors contributed nearly $22.1 million to the economy.
Rather than adding extra regulation at a local government level to the Airbnb sector, Mr Colbeck said it would be smarter for the large traditional sector, such as hotels and motels, to push for a red tape reduction to be in line with the state's short-term accommodation regulation.
"I was a bit bemused that here we have from Launceston – only a matter of weeks really since new regulatory framework came into place here in Tassie – that both the STR sector and local government participated in, there's proposals to add yet another layer of red tape," he said.

  

Friday, 15 September 2017

Coming to a Launceston Cafe near you


What Basil says!!


CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The Untouchables
Words fail me!!

For 7 years you, Janie, and the aldermen have been coned into the Robert Dobrynski mode of operation.

Say nothing!
Do nothing!
Just agree!

He took a $2million debt and turned it into a $20million debt  in 3 months and has left the ratepayers to pay!! Where has the aldermen’s accountability to ratepayers gone? Where has transparency gone?

Closed Council decision making remains supreme.

Why are 8 aldermen always silent at meetings week after week?

Yes, Robert taught you well!

Yes, Minister!!

Yes, yes and always beyond reproach!!


Thursday, 14 September 2017

BYE, BYE BOB


Tidey bids farewell to City of Launceston

Tidey bids farewell to City of Launceston

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4922614/tidey-bids-farewell-to-city-of-launceston/

 

"After more than 30 years of service at the City of Launceston the director of corporate services and acting general manager Michael Tidey has announced his retirement.

 

Mr Tidey has held the position of director of corporate services at the council since the mid-1990s but his career with the City of Launceston began in the 1980s as a management accountant.

​Launceston Mayor Albert van Zetten said one of Mr Tidey's chief responsibilities was overseeing the balancing of the council's budget each year.

"The process for developing the budget each year is a detailed and challenging one," Ald van Zetten said.

"It is obviously crucial that you have someone at the helm of that process who is extremely capable and efficient, and who can lead the organisation through the opportunities and challenges that come with allocating ratepayer's dollars in the best interests of the community."

RELATED STORIES:

Mr Tidey also oversaw the myriad changes in information and communication technology systems since the mid-1980s, the evolution of the council's corporate strategy, and the way the council interacts with its customers.

"He has accumulated a huge amount of corporate knowledge in his 32 years with the council, and is a greatly respected member of our executive team," Ald van Zetten said.

"He is highly regarded by council staff for his ability to translate complex financial matters into simple language, and for his broad knowledge of local government and the operations of the City of Launceston."

The recruitment process for a new director of corporate services has already begun.

Mr Tidey will retire shortly after Michael Stretton commences as the council's general manager in October.

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, 12 September 2017

ABC News: Court dismisses legal challenge to Tasmanian council inquiry

The Supreme Court throws out a legal challenge by Glenorchy City Council's general manager to against a board of inquiry into the suspended council.


If anyone was in any doubt about Local Government in Tasmania being in trouble make the link, and associated links, and discover just how deeply troubling it all is. What is just out of sight is the cost of it all to taxpayers and ratepayers. Indeed, apparently it'sall more widespread than many imagine and the old adage that goes "if you're in a hole stop digging' seems to be the advice Minister Gutwein is trying to take.



Sunday, 10 September 2017

INTEGRITY COMMISSION

 If you think that the Integrity Commission is the correct agency for your complaint, and that it fits within our jurisdiction, please report it to us. 

When you are ready to send us your complaint we ask that you: 

1. Check that your complaint or report fits within our jurisdiction. 
The Integrity Commission, under its legislation, can only deal with matters that relate to misconduct by a public sector authority or officer, as well as elected members of State Parliament and local government. Public sector authorities include state government departments, government businesses, police, custodial officers, the University of Tasmania and councils. 

2. Ensure that your complaint or information is legitimate. 
Your complaint should be provided in good faith, in the belief that it is correct. The legislation makes it an offence to make a false complaint. 3. Consider giving us your details. 

While we accept anonymous complaints, we do encourage you to provide your personal details. If you are anonymous we will be unable to contact you and we cannot follow up if we need to obtain more information. Provide as many relevant details as you can. You do not have to provide every possible document with the form but please ensure you clearly outline those matters relevant to your complaint. 

You can report using one of these options: 
completing the secure online complaint form download a complaint form and returning it to us by email, post or fax telephone the Integrity Commission on 1300 720 289 to request a form be sent to you. Download a complaint form: 

Use our downloadable complaint form (PDF 96.5 KB) if you want to print out the form and write in your responses. If you need help in completing the form or need an interpreter, please contact us to make arrangements on 1300 720 289 or by email. 

Forward the completed form and any associated documents to: .integritycommission@integrity.tas.gov.au 

Integrity Commission, GPO Box 822, 

HOBART TAS 7001  Fax: 03 6173 0262 

Where the information is highly confidential, we recommend submitting your complaint via our secure online form, or by post or fax.

CLICK HERE: http://www.integrity.tas.gov.au/report_misconduct/how_to_report

OMBUDSMAN"S OFFICE TASMANIA


CLICK HERE http://www.ombudsman.tas.gov.au/contact_us/contact_details
  • Enquiries Monday to Friday 9:00 am-4:45 pm (excluding public holidays) 
  •  Phone 1800 001 170 (Free call from a landline nationally, but call charges may apply from a mobile phone or pay phone) 
  • Email ombudsman@ombudsman.tas.gov.au 
  • Street NAB House, Level 6, 86 Collins Street, Hobart Postal GPO Box 960 Hobart 7001

TASMANIAN AUDIT OFFICE



You can contact the Tasmanian Audit Office on
Phone: 03 6173 0900
Mail: Level 8, 144 Macquarie Street, Hobart
The Tasmanian Audit Office’s mission is “to add value to public sector performance and accountability in Tasmania.”
The Tasmanian Audit Office (TAO) is not a part of the Government itself, but is an independent body that assists Parliament in holding Government agencies accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities.
If you have any suggestions, compliments, or complaints, or wish to notify us of any broken links, please complete the form below.
Your comments are appreciated
Thank you
(if you wish to make an anonymous comment please do so – simply select Yes for Anonymous on the right hand side of this page and the form will update)


Friday, 8 September 2017

COUNCIL TALKS UP DEVELOPMENT ... BUT??

 Click on an image to enlarge

FROM THE EXAMINER: "There is plenty of action going on behind the scenes across Launceston's central business district.

From the work underway to revitalise Civic Square to refurbishment of shops and renovations to encompass inner-city living, confidence is high, according to builders.

Tas City Building director Steven Simeoni said work has increased quite a bit in the central city with tenancies being upgraded and real estate selling fast.

"I have about three mainland clients now that are investing in Launceston and that's only a recent thing, my main one, who has a fair bit of property, he researched Hobart then he looked a bit further and Launceston was just really well priced and he has made a lot of money already," Mr Simeoni said.

"All the builders that we deal with are pretty busy and there is more work coming as well. We have two more jobs in town and there is a big St John Street opportunity for someone [at] the Tatler arcade."

There is value for money by building, refurbishing or buying in Launceston, according to Mr Simeoni.

"There's a lot of inner-city living as well, we are building two big units in Charles Street and the council's inner-city living opportunity is helping," he said.

Launceston Chamber of Commerce president Tim Holder said it was a very different building environment than four years ago.
"Architects and builders are busier than they can remember in recent times and this can be further evidence by some trades charging record hourly rates, such as electricians, just due to the amount of work," he said.

"There is a really deep sense of optimism in the minds of people who live here but also people who are choosing to relocate here."

Mr Holder said there were several architectural firms working on apartment block plans both within the CBD and close to the city.

AirBnB is also impacting the market, especially with cottages and properties with close proximity to the CBD, with quality property tight and selling fast, he said.

In terms of retail development, Mr Holder said the only limit was the supply of premises.

"Bernard Salt noted recently in Launceston, that unlike Tasmania and Australia in aggregate, Launceston is losing retail jobs, and is out of sync," he said. "We should carefully consider how this is the case and if development is too hard in Launceston."…"

AND ON THE FLIP SIDE: The Council is spending $20Million of ratepayers' money that it borrowed for 5 years from the State Govt. This money hasn't dropped in from Mars and ratepayers will have to pay it back via their rates as no alternative income source has been identified.

The story seems to be that the Treasurer was handing out interest free loans and Launceston Council's management put Council's hand up for $9Million that was approved by Council after the fact and apparently under the provisions of SECTION  62 of the Act. Then it gets a bit fuzzy as management seems to have accepted an additional $11Million to fund the City Heart Project and that by some accounts was something of a surprise to the aldermen.

Sure, there is quite a bit of construction activity in the city but why is it that ratepayers are to fund this via their rates when no alternative source of income to be directed to that purpose has been identified? It needs to remembered that a great many Launcestonians are not exactly flush with funds currently.

When something like 50% of the city's residents and ratepayers are in receipt of some form of social benefit how has this been taken into account in the decision to borrow to this extent?  

It appears as if the money has been borrowed in the hope that some of it will stick to someone – or rub off on them. If this passes for sound fiscal planning how can it be? In fact, why aren't the city's ratepayers hearing from their aldermen with explanations. Some even stood for Council taking up their business acumen and the Mayor is a Chartered Accountant as is/was Ald. McKenzie.

And speaking of the Mayor, he has been on the ABC Radio talking down the need to amalgamate councils and saying, paraphrased, that considerable savings can be made via councils working cooperatively. He identified $3Million plus which when amortized over the number of ratepayers in the adjoining councils it would as likely as not amount a measly few dollars – a few cups of coffee worth perhaps. If this is read as somewhat self-serving it might because it is as likely as not.