Elections And Democracy

Brexit is a turning point in the history of western democracy. Never before has such a drastic decision been taken through so primitive a procedure – a one-round referendum based on a simple majority. Never before has the fate of a country – of an entire continent, in fact – been changed by the single swing of such a blunt axe, wielded by disenchanted and poorly informed citizens. ............ But this is just the latest in a series of worrying blows to the health of democracy. On the surface, everything still seems fine. A few years ago, the World Values Survey, a large-scale international research project, asked more than 73,000 people in 57 countries if they believed democracy was a good way to govern a country – and nearly 92% said yes. But that same survey found that in the past 10 years, around the world, there has been a considerable increase in calls for a strong leader “who does not have to bother with parliament and elections” – and that trust in governments and political parties has reached a historical low. It would appear that people like the idea of democracy but loathe the reality. ............ Trust in the institutions of democracy is also visibly declining. In the past five years, the European Union’s official research bureau found that less than 30% of Europeans had faith in their national parliaments and governments – some of the lowest figures in years, and an indication that almost three-quarters of people distrust their countries’ most important political institutions. Everywhere in the west, political parties – the key players in our democracies – are among the least trusted institutions in society. Although a certain scepticism is an essential component of citizenship in a free society, we are justified in asking how widespread this distrust might be and at what point healthy scepticism tips over into outright aversion............ CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

PETITION No 2 Letter from Lionel Morrell

Dear Ratepayers and supporters,

Thank you to those who signed the original petition requesting that Launceston City Council convene a Public Meeting to discuss the gifting of the land at Inveresk (the old Velodrome cycling track site next to York Park Stadium) and the Willis Street public car park site (the old Goods Railyard on the opposite side of the North Esk River)  and who were able to attend the Public Meeting that was finally concluded last week on 21st June at Albert Hall. 

The 132 members of the public attending the Public Meeting overwhelmingly opposed the gifting of the land  to the University, compared to less than 10 of those who were willing to vote AGAINST the Motions put to the meeting.

Since the Meeting, The Examiner Newspaper (who has admitted publicly its bias in supporting the move by UTas to Inveresk) received 138 Facebook comments, all opposing the proposal. That level of comment to a media Facebook story is extraordinary!

Unfortunately, Launceston City Council is not obliged to accept the outcome of the Public Meeting, and we are sure that LCC will continue to progress the gifting of the 2 pieces of land to UTas.

However, the Local Government Act 1993 allows for petitioners to proceed to sign a SECOND PETITION, once a Public Meeting has been held on the topic, this time requesting LCC to facilitate an ELECTOR POLL of all Launceston people on the Launceston Elector Roll.

A minimum of 1000 elector signatures (we aim for say, 1500 so as to ensure its validity) must be collected and presented by 20 July 2016. 

We expect this will be a major undertaking in such a short time, however, with your assistance, we hope we can succeed.

If you are able to print off the Petition Form, then we ask that you:

• email LauncestonPR@bigpond.com asking for the PDF Form;
• sign the form and encourage as many friends and acquaintances on the Launceston Roll, to do likewise. 
• post original copies ack to our collection point (P.O. Box 513 Launceston 7250); OR
• simply drop them into my letterbox at 41 High Street, when you are passing. 
• You may also like to send a copy of the Petition to your friends, by email.

If you do not have printing facilities, please ask me for copie(s) to be forwarded to you.
In the meantime, here are a few ‘dot’ points to summarise last Tuesday night’s Public Meeting:

• Criticism of Council’s lack of due diligence, including construction problems/costs and issues with developing on the flood plains of the North Esk River and potential seismic risks
• The track record of UTas in consistently chipping away at the Launceston campus making it but a shadow of what it was 20 years ago. There is no confidence this pattern will change
• 10,000 PLUS extra students can’t be guaranteed. It is an aspirational figure based on demographics not fact, and a fraud to say that is the kind of figure that will eventuate from this proposal
• Absence of support by electors
• Risk of UTas plan not fully eventuating or finding success – the punt
• Reliance on trust versus a properly defined and proven business plan
• The Northern Campuses remaining lesser branches of UTas without the ability of independent initiatives to remain sustainable
• Traffic congestion and parking inadequacies for UTas and other users of the precinct
• We need a uniquely Northern campus independent of UTas 

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you like to discuss your position on this land give away, or have any ideas on how we may further engage with Launceston Electors in relation to this matter.
If you are concerned about the high level of LCC Rates that you are being required to pay, and at how LCC spends your hard-earned money, then please sign the Petition. Council’s valuation of these two pieces of land is $4.5M and apart from the loss of this significant sum that would lessen the Launceston rate burden, the land currently produces a healthy income to Council that helps offset rates paid by its citizens. Once this becomes University owned, not even rates are payable.

Many thanks,

Regards,

Lionel MorrellPresident
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
41 High Street
Launceston TAS  7250
T  03 6331 6144
e  li82303@bigpond.net.au

PM TURBULL SAYS " NO STRINGS ATTACHED" AND UTAS REFUSE RTI APPLICATION RE VC RATHJEN'S EXPENSES

ARE ANY ALARM BELLS RINGING?

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

BUILDING a new University of Tasmania campus near the centre of Launceston is a clever move sure to pull the city out of its economic funk, says Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief Michael Bailey.

 ............ Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull effectively locked in the $300 million Northern Cities project to build inner-city campuses in Launceston and Burnie, today matching the $150 million in support already pledged by Labor ahead of the July 2 poll. ............ Mr Bailey said Launceston and northeastern Tasmania generally would benefit from the cash injection a major construction project could bring. ............ In the longer term, there were the societal and economic benefit that would flow from the placement of large numbers of students in the city. ............ He said the move would also enable UTAS to fully express its laser-sharp focus on research in Launceston and Burnie, facilitating greater engagement with local industries to build smarter more competitive economies. ............ He said the project would be transformational for Burnie, but for Launceston and the North-East it could be an economic saviour. ............ The council will donate $4.5 million worth of land for the UTAS Launceston development and construct a pedestrian and cycling bridge across the North Esk River to improve access.  ............ “That is very important for jobs, which will happen in the construction phase, but it also improve education in northern Tasmania,” Ald van Zetten said. ............ The City Heart development includes $5 million from the State Government and is scheduled to take five years to complete. ............ EARLIER: Speaking on ABC radio this morning, Mr Turnbull said the Coalition would contribute $150 million towards the UTAS relocation project. ............ He said the funding had no strings attached and was not contingent on university deregulation. ............ The project is now assured, with Labor backing the funding earlier in the campaign. ............ The Mercury has campaigned hard for the uni expansion as part of its Fair Go for Tasmania series investigation. ............ University sources said it was a major win for Tasmania.

QUESTIONS OF ACCOUNTABILITY 

FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONIES

RELATED STORY: UTAS Vice-Chancellor's travel costs disappoint union http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-04/uni-travel-spending-under-scrutiny/7218208 .....

RELATED STORY: Students call for transparency after UTAS foots $52,000 travel bill .... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-05/more-transparency-needed-for-utas-travel-expenses/7222850 

The University of Tasmania has been criticised for refusing to release information about its Vice-Chancellor's salary and travel expenses ......... Leaked travel documents obtained by the ABC in March revealed the university had approved more than $50,000 in overseas travel by Vice-Chancellor Peter Rathjen between September 2015 and January this year. ............ The travel included first class flights and a $1,100-a-night hotel in New York. ............ A right to information request for further details about Mr Rathjen's travel bill and salary has been rejected. ............ In its response, the university said disclosing the travel and remuneration information would be contrary to the public interest. ............ It also stated that releasing the information would be likely to expose the university to a competitive disadvantage because potential employees may be deterred from applying for positions at UTAS if they knew their salary and travel costs would be open to public scrutiny. ............ Right to information expert Associate Professor Rick Snell said the university could have been more forthcoming. ............ "My initial reaction, as a person intimately involved with right to information requests, is disappointment," he said. ............ "I think the response from the university should have been more fulsome, should have had more detail to it."  ............ More transparency at other universities: Snell  ............ He said many other universities were much more forthcoming with travel expense details. ............ "I think this is towards the lower end of the spectrum of transparency," he said. ............ National Union of Students Tasmanian president Clark Cooley said students wanted to know where their money was being spent. ............ "We understand that the Vice-Chancellor and the senior leadership team need to travel internationally, but it is important that there is a transparent and accountable system in place to make sure that students and taxpayers are getting their money's worth," he said. ............ "We have called for a more transparent approach to travel for the Vice-Chancellor and senior leadership team."

YOU JOIN THE DOTS

Now that Malcolm Turnbull has shown his hand its critical that we ask ourselves a few question before we vote on July 2 – with the UTas redevelopment of itself on our minds for instance.

• Just what have the managers of 'our money' got in mind that might represent 21st C post secondary education and training;

•  Just what measures have the politicians – local, state & federal –  got on their minds to legislate for in regard to 21st C post secondary education and training; and

•  Just what can we expect in regard to accountability in regard to 21st C post secondary education and training in the north of Tasmania.

It is worth taking note of the actions of local, state and federal politicians most recently elected in the three tiers of governance. Federally, as Greg Barnes alerts us in Independent Australia, we need to think about "each of the anti-democratic measures that now sit on the statute books in this country courtesy of the majority of the politicians we elected in 2013." 

OPEN LETTER TO THE PM RESENT

Prime Minister,

RE: University Relocation Funding For Utas in Launceston

As a member of a network of concerned citizens, residents and Launceston ratepayers I helped arrange for the OPEN LETTER to you ( http://pmopenletter.blogspot.com.au/ ) sent to your office plus the offices of The Treasurer and Minister for Education back in March. Given development in the Bass Electorate and the Public Meeting held in Launceston’s Albert Hall last Tuesday I believe that it is timely that I draw your attention to that letter again.

There is considerable disquiet in the electorate in regard to Launceston Council’s imprudent and cavalier ‘gifting’ of public land with enormous environmental problems attached to the site – not to mention the social and cultural concerns the gift raises. You are well aware of Launceston’s flooding issues we know given that you visited Launceston at the height of recent flooding.

Notwithstanding environmental inhibitors, and far from wishing to stifle an innovative 21st Century post-secondary training and education initiative, it is clear that the concerned citizen network who wrote to you in March, still believe that a way can be found to enable such a development in the region to be realised.

I/we believe that an innovative stand-alone independently governed 21st Century post-secondary institution offering interfacing/interrelating training and degree programs has every prospect flourishing in the Tamar Region.... CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

I went to the meeting on 21 June and wrote this letter to the Examiner 22 Jun

I attended a meeting on 21 June where there was a motion to rescind the gifting of land by the Launceston City Council to the University to relocate to Inveresk.

The arguments put forward by the LCC for the gifting of land seem to me to lack vision and future planning by applying the ‘one size fits all’ view that universities are all moving into cities to create ‘vibrancy’.

This may be true but Launceston has a unique feature – the problematic river system – illustrated recently by the devastating flood danger.

An irony was that the Inveresk university site was one of the first to receive evacuation notice - to the Newnham university campus and that both river bridges may have had to be closed.

So why is it so important that the university be resited to Inveresk when a new building could be built much more cheaply at Newnham in a safer building environment with room for expansion, existing sports grounds, library, cafes, student accommodation - and still be minutes away from the city on a highway system?

Perhaps the Real Estate Industry Tasmania CEO Mark Berry sees it more clearly when on May 26 the Examiner reported that Mr. Berry praised the freeing up of the Newnham site for future property development because ‘the area is still exceptionally close to the CBD and is close to all resources.’ 

Mr. Berry also said ‘he thought students would remain in the area…’ 

The LCC has allowed large national corporations to dictate retail planning over the past few decades and this has led to the CBD losing its vibrancy. So why should the Northern suburbs have to suffer retail, social and environmental disruption because retailing structure in the CBD has changed?

Perhaps the LCC could plan, rezone and advertise extensively in the same way they have been supporting the Uni move – so that the CBD could become more residential which would create boutique shopping, more vibrancy and less reliance on future poverty stricken students for revival of the CBD

Dr Edna Broad

Council behaviours

Prudence has a specific set of meanings denoting caution and wisdom in the use and dispensation of resources. 

Aware ratepayers were alarmed at the speed, lack of transparency and generosity with their assets that characterised the Council's 'response' to UTas proposal to 'move' to Inveresk.

Regardless of the merits, or otherwise, of the UTas case ratepayers have a right to expect their Council to behave with prudence with ratepayer resources because the Council's motto is "progress with prudence". Instead Council has chosen to gift valuable land to UTas without testing the market and without negotiating a reasonable consideration for the resources in question. 

Rather than engage with concerned community members, Council has shown its committment to good governance principles by abandoning them and decrying ratepayer objections, without answering their concerns.

No evidence has been presented as to why land should be gifted to UTas in the first instance, instead Council has again attempted to dismiss ratepayer concerns using the flawed 'noisy minority' arguement. 

It's time the Council demonstrated the level of professionalism and prudence required of an organisation that expends $100 million of public monies each year.

Given the amateurism of the elected aldermen, ratepayers protection falls to the General Manager's competence and probity therefore Council should reveal and promote Mr. Dobrzynski's qualifications for the role which ratepayers are required to pay around $300,000 p.a.

Given the levels of secrecy in Council and their flagrant violation of the principles of good governance, I'd say they have a tidey problem.

Kendall Wyatt

Organisational consultant

POST PUBLIC MEETING REPORT

From Tasmanian Ratepayers' BLOG

CLICK HERE FOR LIONEL MORRELL'S SUBMISSION

The Examiner today gave a reasonably basic account of the meeting but as always there'll be arguments about the numbers [SEE THE EXAMINER] yet the thing is that Council had minuscule support in the room.  

The council's position of unequivocal and uncritical acceptance of the UTas proposition – albeit unsupported by any compelling evidence – is concerning.

It is somewhat concerning when the aldermen are left to represent themselves when they do not appear to be representing their constituency. Aldermen leave themselves open to unwelcomed speculation – warranted, unwarranted, scurrilous, substantiated, whatever – and that does not serve the community at all well.

The main point to be made here is that Council is a long way from claiming anything that looks like a consensus on this issue and possibly other issues too.

Dr Powell presented the meeting with a passionate account of the risks both the council and the university face in an era of change. Likewise his account of how the UTas northern campus had been "asset stripped" pointed to deep inequities in regard to the delivery of post-secondary education and training in the Tamar region.

Furthermore, he said that the 10,000 plus additional students can’t be guaranteed and is an aspirational figure only based on demographics, not facts, hence it is a fraud to say that figure will eventuate from this proposal.

Council claimed a majority of aldermen support their decision but that's hardly representational governance or anything like the good governance the Minister Gutwein is looking for in his guidance on Local Govt. and to quote that guide ... “Good governance is accountable; Good governance is transparent; Good governance is law-abiding; Good governance is responsive;  Good governance is equitable; Good governance is participatory and inclusive; Good governance is effective and efficient; Good governance is consensus oriented “ 

On the consensus count, in regard to the gifting of land, 'consensus' seems to have eluded Launcestonians. It also appears that the council believes that ratepayers and residents need to have decision making imposed upon them rather than bringing them on board in a consensus wherever possible. 

It's sad reflection that it takes the expenditure of so much effort on the part of a council, and the community, to have any kind of conversation about an issue that impacts quite heavily upon the whole community. 

Looking forward, if the council wishes to promote an active economy in the city, better still in the region, it needs to establish transparent and 21st Century collaborative and cooperative arrangements with institutions, business, collectives, etc. That will require a paradigm shift.

CLICK HERE To read the comments the Examiner's reporting drew

ALBERT HALL TUESDAY 21st PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

Here are a few ‘dot’ points to summarise Tuesday night’s Public Meeting:

•  Criticism of Council’s lack of due diligence, including construction problems/costs and issues with developing on the flood plains of the North Esk River and potential seismic risks 

• The track record of UTas in consistently chipping away at the Launceston campus making it but a shadow of what it was 20 years ago. There is no confidence this pattern will change 

• 10,000 PLUS extra students can’t be guaranteed. It is an aspirational figure based on demographics not fact, and a fraud to say that is the kind of figure that will eventuate from this proposal 

• Absence of support by electors 

• Risk of UTas plan not fully eventuating or finding success – the punt

•  Reliance on trust versus a properly defined and proven business plan 

• The Northern Campuses remaining lesser branches of UTas without the ability of independent initiatives to remain sustainable 

• Traffic congestion and parking inadequacies for UTas and other users of the precinct 

•  We need a uniquely Northern campus independent of UTas 

IS LAUNCESTON'S COUNCIL GETTING GREEDY?

People living in retirement villages and other aged care facilities should be very concerned about recent developments at Launceston's Council. 

Not satisfied with the fact that Launceston's rates are already the highest in Tasmania it seems that a group of aldermen and council's operational wing are forming a cabal led by Ald. Hugh McKenzie to investigate the ways council might extract extra rates from Launceston's retirement villages etc.

As Launceston's ratepayers know their rates are already $300 to $500 more than they might be given what's known about the rates that apply across the state. 

It appears that 'the McKenzie cabal' will be delivering a report to council as to how more money can be extracted from Launcestonians via the collection of rates from charitable institutions' properties.

The process that appears to be the one being followed is not one where residents and ratepayers get to be consulted in any meaning way. Almost for certain it'll depend upon so-called social media and other subterranean research techniques that will generate an outcome that'll appear out of the blue on some convenient council agenda without any prior reporting in the press – such as it is these days.

Rather, it appears that 'the McKenzie cabal' will proffer a proposal to council and almost without a whimper it can be expected that 'the aldermen' will fall into line and hand the task over to the operational wing of council. 

BINGO! The job will done and the residents of aged care facilities will join other Launcestonians in the 'rate churn' designed to grow the empires under the control of council's operational wing.

It's time to call the 'the McKenzie cabals' bluff and head it of at the pass. Council has demonstrated it slack of enthusiasm to do anything with its constituency – rather it appears to be hell bent on doing it to them.

The petition that is being promoted at the moment is the first step in calling council to book, and in particular 'the McKenzie cabal', and getting the council back on to the accountability track. For more information about the petition please contact Basil Fitch - PH 6344 2688

 CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

REFERENCES:

• Retirement villages rates report for Launceston Council  CLICK HERE

• City of Launceston council passes rates changes CLICK HERE

• Charitable institutions rates motion CLICK HERE

Look what fell of a truck

Read these documents to gain some kind of insight into 'the politics' in play in regard to UTas's proposed developments in Tasmania.

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Dysfunctionalism And Tasmanian Councils

The Supreme Court’s decision on the Glenorchy Council wrangle offers nothing to suggest there are grounds to disqualify the board of inquiry that Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein ordered into that council. Down in the Huon Valley, where Gutwein last September also felt moved to inquire into its council’s “dysfunction”, the board’s final report is believed to be with the minister and, at time of writing, no application has been made to a court to object to the process of that inquiry. So, it should be reasonable to think that a decision on the future of Huon Valley Council is due any day soon. With the worst of Gutwein’s smoke-and-mirrors balanced budget behind him, and the forestry scene apparently relatively quiet, one would think the minister might have a bit of time to spare to focus his mind on his niggling local-government problems. - 

See more at: http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?%2Fweblog%2Farticle%2Fhuon-valley-guessing-games-its-time-to-act-mr-gutwein%2Fshow_comments

"Calling all Swampies" ... FOODS, LAUNCESTON AND THE PAPER "COMING READY OR NOT!"

FOREWORD 

Dr Jillian Koshin has responded to the Conference Paper below – "COMING READY OR NOT!" – and three further questions. Dr Koshin is a researcher who lives in Invermay/Invertesk and consequently she has an interest in the community in which she lives and a working knowledge of current community perceptions and attitudes. 

For whatever reason Launceston Council while serving the community well enough in a crisis, very well in fact, curiously Council seem largely oblivious to 'local' community perceptions, understandings and sensitivities.

PAPER Coming ready or not! – Perceptions of flood risk in the Launceston community 5 th Victorian Flood Management Conference at Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007  [LINK] K. F. Willis, J. Vince, M. Vogt University of Tasmania and Launceston City Council Launceston, Tasmania 7250 AUSTRALIA .... CLICK HERE

Abstract Launceston is a flood prone municipality. The last major flood occurred in 1929. In this flood, approximately 4000 people were made homeless overnight. Three similarly large floods occurred between 1852 and 1893. If a similar flood to the 1929 flood occurred today, it may affect around 640 homes in the flood area. However, all of the low-lying suburbs of Invermay/Inveresk could remain inaccessible with service interruptions that might prevent occupation of homes. Major roads would also be closed. This means that somewhere around 3000 residents and 270 commercial properties would be affected.

In addition, it is envisaged that a flood of this magnitude would cause significant damage to infrastructure of state significance such as Aurora Sports Stadium, the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and the University of Tasmania’s Inveresk Campus. Such damage would incur significant financial loss and require both immediate and long term economic recovery. The state of the flood levee protection has received considerable Council (and media) attention, with Council attempting to secure state and federal funding to upgrade the levee system.

It is estimated that without flood levee protection, 40% of Invermay/Inveresk could be under water during high tide every day. The water could be over 1 metre deep at some locations. This could continue twice a day until any breaches in the levee banks are fixed and flood waters are pumped back into the river. Recent engineering advice indicates that in the event of a ‘modest flood’, there could be significant damage to property and interference to land use, commercial activity, employment and people’s lives for an extended period.

Despite the fact that this is a high profile issue in the Launceston community, there is little knowledge about the perceptions and beliefs of the residents most likely to be affected in the event of a major flood. 

This paper reports on a research collaboration between the Launceston City Council and the University of Tasmania aimed at finding out more about community flood risk perceptions. Taking a sociological approach to risk perception, the project aims to examine in detail the demographic composition of the affected area, and a study of residents’ perception of, and readiness for, a major flood event. It is intended that the information gained from this study will assist the Launceston City Council to develop effective risk communication strategies, and to develop appropriate policies for emergency management should a major flood event occur.

Dr. Koshin's 2016 response to this paper "Coming ready or not!" ... CLICK HERE

The Postponed Public Meeting's Date Time and Venue

Notice of Public Meeting

Public Meeting 7 June 2016 postponed to 21 June 2016

The public is advised that at the Public Meeting held at the Albert Hall, Launceston at 7pm on Tuesday 7 June 2016 in response to a petition received by the Council Meeting, the subject matter being:

1.    That the Launceston City Council call a Public Meeting for the purpose of discussing the Council's decision to transfer (free gift) land, known as Willis Street Car Park and Old Velodrome

2.    Call on Council to rescind the motion passed by the Full Council Meeting 9th November 2015 to transfer said land (free gift) to UTAS

3.    That the said land be placed for sale on the open market via a public auction with a Reserve Price of $5 million,

the following decisions were taken:

1.    That Mr Don Wing AM is appointed as chairperson for the purposes of the Public Meeting; and

2.    That in view of the flood crises that is threatening Launceston and with respect to the efforts and pleadings by the petitioners and their representative for this Public Meeting to be rescheduled to a later date since yesterday, such a request having been refused by Council's representatives, this meeting now be adjourned forthwith and resume at this same venue on Tuesday 21 June 2016 at 7pm, so that those people attending can now return home safely.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Meeting will be held in Albert Hall, corner of Tamar and Cimitiere Streets Launceston, commencing at 7pm on Tuesday 21 June 2016 to consider the matters sought by the petitioners, namely:

1.    That the Launceston City Council call a Public Meeting for the purpose of discussing the Council's decision to transfer (free gift) land, known as Willis Street Car Park and Old Velodrome

2.    Call on Council to rescind the motion passed by the Full Council Meeting 9th November 2015 to transfer said land (free gift) to UTAS

3.    That the said land be placed for sale on the open market via a public auction with a Reserve Price of $5 million.

The chair of the Public Meeting shall be Mr Don Wing AM and the Meeting shall be conducted in accordance with the Local Government Meeting Procedures (Regulations) 2015, as appropriate. The agenda of the meeting will be:

1.    Opening remarks from the Mayor, Alderman A M van Zetten

2.    Introductory remarks from the Chair, Mr Don Wing AM

3.    Report on submissions by the General Manager under section 60A(4) of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas)

4.    Statements of position (15 minutes each)

(a)  Council

(b)  Petitioner

5.    Motions on the subject matter

6.    Close

Written submissions in relation to the subject matter have been summarised by the General Manager and will be available to those attending the Public Meeting and can be viewed at www.launceston.tas.gov.au.

Robert Dobrzynski

General Manager