Letter to Professor Rathjen et al

Subject: UTAS

Dear Professor Rathjen

Sorry to bother you but I thought you may be able to answer a question for me. Back in 2003 Mr Ali Sultan bought No 12-14 Bathurst St Hobart from the then government for $410,000 market value. In 2009 Utas paid him 3.5 million dollars for the property. In April 2010 Mr Andrew Edwards of Edwards Windsor was acting on the behalf of UTas re the purchase of No 57 Campbell St. I’m sure you remember, No  57 Campbell St is on a corner, adjacent to and a larger property than 12-16 Bathurst St. Mr Edwards is a real estate agent and valuer and he valued 57 Campbell St at 1 million dollars. A request was sent to UTas asking which real estate agent they used to buy the other properties on the block, they said they didn’t have to use an agent. Professor could you tell me why they used one for 57 Campbell St?

 Another one of Sultan’s property on the block sold for 2 million dollars over value. Mr Rockefeller also made a couple of million. An email was sent to you in March 2015 telling you of the $7 million dollars of taxpayer’s money given to millionaire developers. You didn’t even bother to reply, in August of that year UTas again paid Rockefeller 5 million dollars over value for two properties in Argyle St the site of the proposed Stem Development. December 2017 another property on this site was bought for 4 million dollars over market value.

Professor, I think Mr Rockefeller has psychic powers, what do you think?

Why would any sane person want to give Rockefeller any more of taxpayer’s money?

Listed below are properties owned by Rockefeller’s companies, mostly full of state and federal government offices. If there isn’t a law to restrict how many government offices can be leased from one person, there should be. I know he does business in Victoria, QLD and NSW so he is probably getting similar deals in those states. A request has been sent to Mr Hodgman asking him how much the state government is paying Mr Rockefeller for leasing office space. Hobart is a small city I reckon he has most of the government leases.

Trafalgar Building 110-114, Collins St…Nekon Pty Ltd

Elizabeth St…….Nekon Pty Ltd

256 Liverpool St…..Stanrock P/L

254 Liverpool St……Stanrock Pty Ltd

38 Barrack St…..Stanrock P/L

1 Franklin Wharf…..Newtown Rockets P/L

190-202 Collins St…..Sunset Rock Investments P/L

2-4 Salamanca Place.....Winrock Investments Pty Ltd

203 Channel Hwy, Kingston….AAD Nominees P/l

19-27 Argyle St……..United Specialists Managers P/L

2 Gordans Hill RD, Rosny Park……Cranbourne Properties P’L

51 Cattley St Burnie………Rockbros P/L  

 Mr Rockefeller takes full advantage of government grants as the attached shows. Total for four of his properties is over 1.3 million dollars.

Green Building Fund Funding offers – May 2009 

	State			Building address			Applicant			Grant amount
SA			89 Pirie Street, Adelaide			Greyville Pty Ltd as trustee for Greyville Property Trust			$487,900
SA			91-97 Grenfell St, Adelaide			Chesser Properties Pty Ltd as trustee for Chesser Trust			$458,000
TAS			1 Franklin Wharf, Hobart			Newtown Rockets Pty Ltd as trustee for Newtown Rockets Trust			$195,270
TAS			19-27 Argyle St, Hobart			United Specialist Managers Pty. Ltd. as trustee for The MBF Trust			$106,000
TAS			200 Collins St, Hobart			Sunset Rock Investments Pty. Ltd. as trustee for Sunset Rock Investment Trust			$214,000
TAS			203 Channel Highway, Kingston			AAD Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for AAD Trust			$500,000
TAS			49-51 Cattley Street, Burnie			Rockbros Pty. Ltd. as trustee for Rockbros Trust			$301,685

Mr Rockefeller’s company Nekon P/L is leasing the tourist side of the Salmon Ponds at New Norfolk. The site is owned by Inland Fisheries Services.  Quite a change for Rockefeller but I bet it’s a serious money spinner. By the way the Dept. of Primary Industries, Water an Environment have their office at 1 Franklin Wharf.

If you wish to contact the Mercury their address is 2-4 Salamanca Sq.

Regards

M G

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Council Plays Favourits

Show Society 

I WRITE in response to an article “Show society still quiet on its future” (The Examiner, February 8). ................ It is with sadness that after 144 years of wonderful shows it now, along with many in Australia, is fighting for survival. ................ State monetary assistance of $122,500 would be appreciated by the board over four years. ................ The paltry sum of $39,875 supplied by council falls very short of assistance to other like-minded organisations. Festivale receive $40,000 a year. ................ The intended move of UTAS to Inveresk has caused many concerns, especially spruiking in media two weeks before the show that it would make 750 car parks on their site for students. ................ The show society has a 99-year lease from the Launceston city council................. There was a further insult to the society recently, when a cricket pitch suddenly appeared where equestrian events take place. ................ The society in 2016 endeavoured to improve its financial position by turning the land into motor home parking for 51 weeks. This would have given a return of $70,000, but was refused by the council. ................ There’s little doubt the show society and North Launceston Football Club are being “dumped down” in favour of UTAS. ................ Basil Fitch, Launceston.

EDITOR'S NOTE:  This Council's behaviour is way beyond the pale on this and so many other issues. Representational local government in Tasmania is appalling, truly appalling.

Culture, Money And Accountability

If Launcestonians were to compare and contrast what happening in their city and a city elsewhere they could expect to be informed of things they didn’t get to see at home. Ald. Gibson is reported in The Examiner as having been the only Alderman to seriously question the proposal for a ‘Cultural Strategy’ that involves the QVMAG. In this case this strategy involves a substantial 'community owned' cultural asset that Lasuncestonians have invested a great deal in over a very long time.

 In fact it is reported that:

• The estimated dollar value of QVMAG collections: $230-40 Million; 
• The cost of keeping the institution openand there is approx. $40.00 plus per person per attendance; 
• The attendance per annum is approx. 144,500 - averages approx. 400 per day; 
• The total number of employees is approx. 78 – Effective Full Time = 46 

All this adds some perspective to management's proposed Cultural Strategy – and a perspective that all too often gets glossed over.

Clearly the report – essentially a management initiative –  downplays the fiscal implications of the initiative – and they will be many. This is so despite Ald. Gibson's questioning and concerns. Alarmingly, the report was adopted without amendment with the ten Aldermen present voting virtually ‘on the voices’ for its adoption. Nevertheless, Ald. Gibson characterised it as being confusing. 

Given that this is the case, a Council interested in due diligence and accountability would have deferred the decision until outstanding questions are resolved and further information was provided. Indeed, a Council alert to its maxim, 'Progress With Prudence', might well have voted differently to the way they did but it seems that Prudence was not present.

In wondering about what has been missed these things stand out

1. Try as one might there does not appear to be a clear statement of the propose ... That is the unit advancing the strategy’s PURPOSE!!
2. Neither does it appear that there is any kind of articulation in regard to a CLEAR set of Strategic Objectives for the proposed unit!!
3. Thus, one might well wonder about the set of rationales that are informing and driving this strategic initiative!
4. Thus, the strategy/iers implied in the document do NOT seem to fit a PURPOSE and any consequent OBJECTIVES – if and when they are articulated!

So, how could any effort that is being expended be regarded as being purposeful? If something is not purposeful why do it all?

More to the point, given the lack of meaningful community consultation or community participation, have any of the Aldermen, except Ald. Gibson, asked any of these questions so far?

•  Is a Cultural ‘Unit’ a viable idea and is it Core Launceston Council Business? If so why so?
• Would such an initiative be more relevant in a regional context?  
• If there is a 'Launceston City need' where is there a strong case put for such an initiative and in what context? 
• Are the Aldermen (QVMAG Trustees?) only just now being engaged in this matter – a proposition of, and an initiative of, management?
• Indeed, where is the QVMAG Governance Advisory Board’s involvement and/or engagement in this process?
• If this 'advisory body' isn't being involved, or hasn't been engaged in the process, why not and indeed what is its purpose?

In fact, is there such an urgent need to progress this initiative put forward by 'management' before such questions can be adequately answered out in the open? That is, with the constituency, the people who will be called upon to pay for any outcome, being fully involved and engaged?

Then there is the 'report' from Robyn Archer that is for whatever reason being kept confidential. 

• What could it possibly contain that could not stand public scrutiny?
• Might transparency of process here not only be prudent, perhaps it might also reveal that 'the report' lacked an adequate brief to measure its recommendations against?
• If that is the case what real value or relevance might ‘the report’ have – and might any of this be assessed?

However, Launcestonians need to be very, very thankful to have 'bureaucratic betters' available to them to:

• Blow into to town from time to time to deem 'cultural value' ;
• Tell them what is actually what in the 'cultural arena';
• Tell them about 'their culture' and what they value and how much; and
• Reap a hefty reward for their efforts and 'cultural expertise' before moving on.

Ray Norman March 2018

University And Council Are Playing Silly Games With People's Lives

AGAIN the move of the University of Tasmania campus from Newnham to Inveresk is in the news, still with the idea the city centre will be reinvigorated ‘by the move of thousands of students’ into the CBD.

Unfortunately the reality is very different, with more and more UTAS degrees moving altogether from Launceston, and the much promised thousands of students finding they must move to Hobart or study online.

Two of my family had already moved to Launceston for fully on campus degrees, only to find these degrees are vanishing.

One could not even complete the first year in Launceston and had to change degrees only to then find in one subject, the Launceston students finally had to make do with taped Hobart lectures, as no lecturer was ever available in Launceston. This year, the second degree is also now no longer available in Launceston and he was simply offered the UTAS accommodation details for Hobart if he wishes to continue full time, on campus.

Both students have done exceptionally well in their studies and have accommodation and work arranged in Launceston. Not one of their peers has been able to complete degrees on campus in Launceston and all must move to Hobart, interstate or study online. I would suggest those who believe the CBD will be reinvigorated by these ‘thousands of students’ need to be asking UTAS for some actual figures as to how many on campus degrees are fully available in Launceston, and how many of those students enrolling are still fully on campus in Launceston by their second year of study. 

For these are the only students who will be moving to Launceston and strolling down the mall.

Michele King, Campbell Town.

EDITOR'S NOTE: It is about time that Launceston's Council faced up to the fact that they involved in one huge mind game that just is not going to deliver what they are saying it will. Handing over public assets to this institution on a promise is more than silly. There is every chance this so called 'town-and-gown' ideal is a yesterday idea and tomorrow is about to arrive with a bang. 

Whatever happens it will not be as Council and UTas have said it will be. It will be Launceston businesses with egg on their face. The good Aldermen will take their allowances and run for the hills. 

God save us from all this nonsense!!

What is this all about? What is it going to cost who?

The Tasmanian Election And The Olympics

Everybody loves a winner, that’s the reason why we all enjoy watching the Olympic Games. However, the one thing we cannot abide is to see a smiling winner standing on the dais, medal aloft, and holding suspicions that their result is due to substance abuse. We would also not be particularly impressed if we knew we had to wait 18 months to find out the results of the official drug test.

So let’s compare this situation to the election at the weekend. In a supposed Democracy, just like the Olympics, we all expect, demand and deserve fair play. The whole process should be transparent and in the Australian tradition, a genuine fair go for all. That’s who we are isn’t it?

In truth, secrecy and the power of vested commercial and private companies has become the modus operandi behind the scenes of all levels of government and just like the corrupted Olympic athlete, the Liberal Party of Tasmania is guilty of its own substance abuse in the form of the visually obvious, and obscene levels of funding from the gambling lobby. And just like drug dealers, the suppliers and sellers do not care about the effects of this on society as long as their source of power and wealth is uninterrupted.  

We, as Australian Citizens deserve better than this and our “Representatives”, our “Servants” have nothing less than a duty of care to do so much better than this.

NB: This has been submitted to THE EXAMINER so it will be interesting to see if it gets a run there