THE GREENS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

SHONKY STUFF GOING ON AT TOWN HALL ... AGAIN

The City of Launceston approved another land transfer at Inveresk to the University of Tasmania on Monday but concerns were raised about UTAS’ transparency during the debate. The site, which UTAS occupies on a 99-year lease, includes the Exhibition Building containing the school of architecture, the furniture school building and the Stone Building.......... The decision on Monday was merely the council fulfilling the requirements of an agreement made in 2012, Alderman Robin McKendrick said upon moving the motion.......... Aldermen McKendrick was a member of the council in 2012 but could not vote on the matter as he had declared a pecuniary interest.......... Alderman Danny Gibson, who voted against the motion along with Aldermen Emma Williams and Karina Stojansek, said when the original agreement was made the council “could not contemplate” the UTAS relocation project that was later proposed. ......... “Did the university have a bigger plan of which we were not aware of, I’m not sure, were they aware of a bigger plan and they chose not to share it with us?,” Alderman Gibson said. ......... “Of course the relationship moving forward, over the ensuing five years, and the drip-feed nature of which they have kind of taken off bits to get where they have now must be contemplated. ......... TRANSFER APPROVED: A map from the City of Launceston's meeting agenda from Monday, February 19 showing the land which was transferred to UTAS. TRANSFER APPROVED: A map from the City of Launceston's meeting agenda from Monday, February 19 showing the land which was transferred to UTAS.......... “[With] the dealings with UTAS over the past five years, and the way that they have kind of ticked off their list to get what they want, without sharing the overarching vision at the beginning … it’s impossible not to join the two decisions together.” ......... In 2012 the then-aldermen voted 8-3, with one absent, to enter an “in principal” agreement with UTAS to transfer the existing sites and give a freehold title to a narrow strip of land along the North Esk River bank, where student accommodation has been constructed. ......... The formalisation of that agreement went before the council on Monday, but the exact valuation of the land to be transferred was not detailed in the public version of the meeting agenda. .........  UTAS land transfer to go before council Soil testing starts at Inveresk as part of Northern Transformation Plan This saw the council go in and out of closed sessions multiple times at Monday’s meeting. ......... Part of the deal was for UTAS to contribute $500,000 to the council’s investment of $1.3 million to construct the flood protection levee. ......... A council spokesman said “$550,000 was paid in full in early 2014”. .... CLICK HERE TO READ THIS EXAMINER STORY ONLINE

RELATED STORIES:

• Live coverage of the Launceston City Council meeting
• City of Launceston set to transfer more land to University of Tasmania
• National Automobile Museum of Tasmania makes way for UTAS campus

Is Launceston Council's Integrity Questionable?

Somewhat mysteriously this advertisement appeared in Saturday's Examiner. If we think about it, its the sort of advertisement that might well have appeared a long long time ago? Think about it!

This Launceston Council has operated as if accountability is discretionary and every last Alderman has been complicit in forging this impression – every last one of them!!

This is an election year for both the State Govt and Local Govt so if you as a constituent are tired of being jerked about and feel like you've been sidelined now you've got an opportunity to check this bunch of Aldermen's integrity.

Take the opportunity to quiz this lot but do not get you hopes up. Do not expect answers to your questions! Do not expect any one of the to call you back! Do not expect answers to your emails! Do not expect a hearing! Do not expect them to approach you asking you for your opinion! AND it seems you should not expect realistic representation.

In any event attempt to glean what information you can in any way you can and let your efforts colour your voting intentions.

OUTRAGEOUS PLANNING PROPOSAL ...OUTRAGEOUS!!

ONE issue in this state election campaign that ought to get an airing is the extent to which the Hodgman government’s much vaunted planning reforms, the Statewide Planning Scheme and the proposed major projects law, represent a disturbing increase in the power of executive government at the expense of the legislature and community. ............. In other words, instead of being a laudable case where government establishes a regulatory framework that ensures environmentally and socially enhancing development along with investor certainty, what we have is a dangerous situation where powerful interests can unduly influence a minister and a government. It’s called regulatory capture. ............. The previous Labor government began work on a sorely needed statewide planning scheme some years ago and the Hodgman government completed the work. ............. The absurd over-regulation of planning in Tasmania allowed for capricious decisions, too much NIMBYism and deterred investment. But the shift to a statewide scheme has been undertaken unsatisfactorily and will put at risk Tasmania’s natural and built heritage. ............. The new planning system vests enormous powers in the planning minister. Under the new Tasmanian Planning Scheme the minister, currently Peter Gutwein, devises and issues what are called State Planning Provisions. These are decrees that set out what is and is not permitted on every inch of land in Tasmania. The extent of the power of whomever is planning minister is evidenced by this explanation by the Government about SPPs: “The SPPs include 23 generic zones which indicate what land use and development is appropriate for each zone such as residential, business, agriculture, utilities, environmental and recreational uses.” ............. The Tasmanian Parliament cannot disallow an SPP and here is no independent body that must certify it, before it is issued. ............. This tendency of Mr Gutwein to want to accumulate power is also manifest in another of the Hodgman Government’s planning reforms, the proposed major projects law. Under this law certain projects can be declared major projects by the minister of his or own volition as well as at the request of the project proponent. The criteria for what is a major project is extraordinarily broad. All that the project needs to show is that it meets two criteria out a vacuous list. These criteria include that the project will “make a significant financial contribution to the region or the state; Is of strategic planning significance to a region or the State; Will significantly affect public infrastructure; Has significant environmental, economic or social affects; or Requires two or more approvals under relevant planning, utility, heritage and environmental legislation (project-associated Acts), or the approval or implementation of the project will require assessments of the project by more than one planning authority.’ ............. The Hodgman government says that the independent Tasmanian Planning Commission will be the check and balance on the major projects regime. But guess who appoints members of that body? The Minister for Planning. ............. But there is a broad coalition concerned about these planning reforms and Professor Michael Buxton from RMIT University, probably Australia’s foremost planning expert, is warning against these changes. ............. A group called the Planning Matters Alliance, headed by Sophie Underwood, is advocating greater community participation on planning. What is intriguing about her organisation is that its membership is diverse. Anglicare is a member but so is the Hobart Dog Walking Association. ............. Professor Buxton, in a 2016 interview, described the evil arising from planning ministers amassing power in the way that is being done in Tasmania. ............. “Nobody knows who is influencing who, how and why. And while developer donations are allowed, and powerful influences buy access, a favour bank exists. Access to the minister gives powerful interests a major advantage. If somebody walks in off the street they can’t even get an audience with the minister. But if you’re a peak property group you can get an audience by clicking your fingers. There’s a difference. Access is rationed to the influential and the powerful, and to political donors. If people don’t get what they want from making political donations, then why do they give money to political parties?,” Buxton argued. ............. It is ironic that the Hodgman Government believes that it is creating a long-term investor friendly environment with its reforms. It is doing the opposite. The competitive advantage of Tasmania’s built and natural heritage is put at risk and there will be no certainty in decision making. The minister can act capriciously, vindictively, and even whimsically in dealing with planning matters and there is little that can be done about it. ............. This is what happens when ignorant politicians like Mr Hodgman and Mr Gutwein get lobbied by self-serving groups like the Property Council and its allies. ............. They are sold a line about jobs and cranes in the sky and it does the trick. ............. Meanwhile Tasmania’s urban, rural and wilderness environments are now in the hands of all powerful and secretive government officials. ............. A disaster in the making. 

Greg Barns is a human rights lawyer. He has advised state and federal Liberal governments.

NOT HAPPY YOU PEOPLE NOT HAPPY!!!