JUST WHAT'S GOING ON WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT

RELATED STORY: Auditor-general's scathing report on Glenorchy City Council finds governance lacking

RELATED STORY: Glenorchy councillors to be sacked to 'restore democracy'

RELATED STORY: Hobart's Glenorchy council on brink of insolvency, with large rate rise flagged

Another damning report into the Glenorchy City Council has found a "loyal trio" operated in conflict of interest for financial gain, potentially to the tune of $1 million.

The Integrity Commission investigated a 2016 complaint from Glenorchy Mayor Kristie Johnston about Alderman Stuart Slade, general manager Peter Brooks and general counsel Seva Iskandarli.

The report pointed to several incidents between 2013 and 2016 where Mr Brooks and Ms Iskandarli directly benefited from the actions of one another.

"The degree of loyalty between Mr Brooks, Ms Iskandarli and Ald Slade existed at the expense of objectivity or the interests of the council," Integrity Commissioner Richard Bingham said.

It said in 2016 Ald Slade was instrumental in altering the method of assessing Mr Brooks' performance as general manager, resulting in him receiving an $18,000 performance bonus he would not otherwise have obtained.

During Ms Iskandarli's employment with the council, she was involved in the amendment of Mr Brooks' contract of employment on two occasions — each time at the direction or request of him or Ald Slade.

Mr Brooks also authorised a salary increase for Ms Iskandarli, who in turn developed KPIs for him.

"In the same year, Mr Brooks appointed Ms Iskandarli as Restructure Coordinator for a process that resulted in her promotion to Director Corporate Governance," the report said.

"Shortly afterwards, Mr Brooks appointed Ms Iskandarli to the position of General Counsel, despite evidence suggesting that at that time Mr Brooks did not know what the role of a General Counsel was."

Mr Bingham estimated the conflicts of interest and attempts to improperly gain pecuniary benefits would reach $1 million.

Ald Johnston said there needed to be consequences for the behaviour.

"At the moment, the individuals outlined in those reports have walked away scot free and the burden of the conduct that they have participated in lies with the community," Ald Johnston said.

"So the community. unfortunately. are the ones at the moment that are paying for the consequences of that conduct.

"We would be very pleased to assist and co-operate with any investigation that might be going forward."

Report 'very concerning': Gutwein

Alderman Matt Stevenson, who also complained about the behaviour of the three, said it confirmed that "ignorance and arrogance" ruled supreme.

"What occurred was a clear conflict of interest, and that is why the mayor and I had absolutely no doubt that we needed to make the initial submission to the Integrity Commission," he said.

"There is no place for that kind of incompetence and lack of ethics within the community, business or government, so it is time for those responsible to finally be held to account."

The report found that when Ald Johnston and Ald Stevenson complained about the behaviour, they experienced strong personal criticism, especially from Mr Slade.

 "A possible conclusion to be drawn from the response to the issues raised by Ald Johnston and Ald Stevenson is that the conflicted culture within council led to some aldermen rejecting those concerns due to political biases," it said.

Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein labelled the report "very concerning".

"I understand the director of local government has reviewed the Integrity Commission's report and is further investigating a number of matters to determine whether referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions should occur," he said.

"The Government is determined to ensure that any potential breaches of the law are investigated fully."

Mr Gutwein suspended the entire council in February 2017 after months 

• OPINION in QUEENSLAD
• POLITICS
• QUEENSLAND
• QUEENSLAND COUNCILS
The state government must come down hard on Ipswich City Council        By Rachel Nolan22 May 2018 — 3:12pm 

The state government will this week consider Ipswich City Council’s response to a show cause as to why it should not be sacked. ..................... The council will argue that it would be wrong to punish councillors who were not party to alleged corruption themselves, that the dismissal of the council is some kind of assault on democracy. ....................That is wrong, given that local government has always been a creature of the state. The state will then choose between all its options – sack or suspend; or appoint an administrator for months or years. There’s only way to go here. Hard! ..................... The situation in Ipswich is worse than generally publicly understood and sorting is out is going to take the full two years until the next scheduled council election...................... While all the media commentary about Ipswich has focused on alleged corruption, notably the charges against the last two mayors and two CEOs, the bigger issue is the maladministration this allegedly corrupt environment has created. This is the landmine the administrator will find when he or she begins work...................... There are two primary elements to maladministration in Ipswich – organisational and financial. At an organisational level, the council is profoundly politicised and lacks a proper professional and independent public service culture...................... The populist mayor Paul Pisasale was such a dominant figure for so long that council simply lost the distinction between the mayor and councillors’ political interests and the public interest of the city. For a long time, Ipswich has provided relatively poor services for high rates and far too many staff are engaged in public relations...................... As the political façade has fallen apart, organisational morale has collapsed. Staff are directionless and many are scared about what they might have done as even junior staff were directed to “just fix it.” There has already been one suicide of a senior council staff member along with a number of sudden departures and breakdowns...................... The administrator will have to reassure staff, embark on an organisational restructure and establish a proper, professional public service culture...................... Financially, it seems likely that the Ipswich City Council has significant problems. While the operational budget is sitting at a comfortable surplus, there is a crisis in council’s beneficial companies. The CBD is a council-owned demolition site...................... A decade ago, the council purchased Ipswich City Square, the 1980s shopping centre that occupies the three key blocks of the city centre. The centre was in bad shape partly through neglect by its former foreign owner and partly because the council had approved, and then allowed to be built oversized, the massive Riverlink shopping centre directly across the river...................... In the years since the 2008 purchase the council under mayors Pisasale and Andrew Antoniolli, and their deputies Paul Tully and Wayne Wendt, have launched successive, ever more fanciful master plans, the most absurd being a 2016 pre-election commitment for an inner-city lagoon. No promise has ever been fulfilled and instead council has accrued losses likely now sitting in the millions of dollars, with not a thing to show...................... Over the last 12 months through a series of secretive and farcical moves council has entered into contracts first to lease and then later to build and own a new headquarters on the CBD site. Development has been at a snail’s pace; a devastating blow for surrounding CBD businesses...................... With no transparency around the dealings of council companies and a massive debt secured by the council itself, it is quite possible the administrator will find council has entered into a contract for a building it can’t afford. The upshot of the CBD debacle will likely be a call for funds through further state loans, rate rises or both. A new, professional master plan will have to be undertaken for the CBD – all while Ipswich has hit its borrowing limit and the inner city is a hole in the ground...................... The CBD and the mess of the secretive council companies will take time to sort out. The final reason for a significant period of administration is that Ipswich’s civic culture will take time to restore...................... While it may seem over the top to describe Ipswich as a repressive political environment, the fact is that normal civic debate in which individuals and stakeholders have access to information and put forward different views is simply not happening here...................... Over more than a decade, Ipswich became split into Team Pisasale and a marginal few – that’s what a vote of 87 per cent means in practice...................... There was barely a vote or a public debate on council, people who raised concerns were forced out or marginalised (think Mr Pisasale ridiculing Jo-Ann Miller while wearing a wig) and the ALP, which matters because it’s by far the largest and most organised political party in town, was hijacked by Mr Pisasale. He used his membership to neutralise the party as a potential source of opposition and his popularity to co-opt key state MPs to his team...................... If an election was held tomorrow in Ipswich, it would be won by either the One Nation-aligned fringe dwellers, who have put some work into opposing the council, or, as in the last mayoral byelection, by a member of the existing boys’ club who supported Mr Pisasale and even now fail to see the problem...................... The administrator needs to do their job, people have to understand the extent of the problem and there needs to be some time for proper civic debate and a sensible centre to arise...................... Ipswich is a wonderful place. I say it with feeling as someone who was born here, who represented the place in Parliament and in cabinet and who now owns a business in the main street...................... The fundamental irony of Mr Pisasale’s populism was that while the people loved him because he “stood up for Ipswich”, his whole development push was predicated on the idea that the existing Ipswich wasn’t much good and needed to be saved – or superseded – by new outer suburban sprawl at Springfield and on the fringes of town...................... Ipswich has a significant history. It has a tremendous physical environment, wonderful inner-city architecture, an unpretentious culture and that rare thing – a deep and genuine sense of community...................... It can get itself through the abuse council maladministration and alleged corruption has delivered. It will not, however, be an easy fix. It will take some time...................... Rachel Nolan is a former state Labor member for Ipswich and Minister for Finance. She now teaches governance at UQ and owns a café in Ipswich’s main street. She has no interest in running for council.

Dear Madam Speaker

A PROCESS TO WATCH OUT FOR – Director Creative Arts & Cultural Services

Click on the image to enlarge

It is interesting to see this advertisement in the press today. Looking to the future here it seems that the City of Launceston is mindlessly stumbling down the path where management gets mixed up with governance to make an unholy soup that is likely one day to lead to yet another expensive but totally avoidable mistake – stuffup in other words.

Public Administration 101 has told us for a long time that management's role is to implement the strategic policy determinations of governance. Here the applicant is required, it seems, to show leadership while possessing a "strategic perspective" not to mention, have the ability to predict the future.

With what is on display here Launcestonians need to grit their teeth and pray even if its not something they do all that often. 

Those overseeing this process will not be, and are not, paying for it. Ratepayers and residents will as always be paying up and as always there has been no inclination whatsoever to take them, or anyone representing them, into the decision making tent.

GO TO: http://www.artshub.com.au/job/victoria/administration-management/director-creative-arts-and-cultural-services-253805

Facebook Accountability For An Aspiring Mayor

Alderman Janie Finlay has been running a survey (through Survey Monkey) this week. Ald Finlay clearly thinks that by doing this kind of thing she is 'listening' and 'consulting', but of course her answers are ever likely to be stock standard  Finlay obfuscation but let's see. 

We all need to be aware that Ald. finlay is going to hold a live FaceBook session on Sunday early evening on the subject of the UTAS move. Apparently she sees this as being the same as listening, but with no intention of taking the slightest bit of notice – you see she's been elected to have an opinion not to represent her constituents.

However hasn't she been a very good girl. All that grass roots engagement with the community. 

Anyway pay attention and hold her to account and make sure she holds her fellow aldermen to account especially the Mayor since she wants to be Mayor again apparently.

Open letter to the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, and the Council of the University of Tasmania.

Dear Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and Members of Council,

As you watch and re-watch the video footage of the catastrophic floods and the aftermath in and around Hobart, and as you are forced to address the problems and the very real risk to life arising from the flood events at the Sandy Bay campus of the University of Tasmania, including the dramatic rescue of the security officer trapped in a room with the rising waters, consider the implications should, and when, such events occur at Inveresk, Launceston.

After you review the footage of water flowing down a long hallway where people are still present, of ruined Law Library books washed out onto the grass, of the height reached by flood water and the resulting damage to computers in the Engineering department and the emotional responses of staff and students, and after you clean up and prepare to assess the damage and costs, it is incumbent upon you to thoroughly examine the following serious matters in relation to the University’s Northern campus.

The flood catastrophe in Hobart and the flooding and damage at the Sandy Bay Campus have been described as unprecedented. In stark contrast, flooding of Inveresk, the planned relocation site of the University’s Launceston campus is not unprecedented. Inveresk is a tidal flat that sits 1.5 metres below high level, the only such suburb in Australia. It has been subject to serious flooding in the past. More than half of the length of its boundary is tidal estuarine frontage. Although it is bordered by flood levees, these levees require constant maintenance, levees are never guaranteed to protect an area from flood inundation, and this is becoming increasingly so in the era of climate change and rising sea levels.

Climate change, rising sea temperatures and rising sea levels are already affecting the North Esk Estuary. Sea temperatures along Tasmania’s East Coast have risen 2 degrees in recent years. The tidal range along the north coast near the mouth of the Tamar River is approximately 3 metres. The tidal range in Launceston is around 4 metres, higher during king tides, and the water table rises with the tides. While sea-level rise can be calculated along the coast, it is not yet known what the effects will be on the greater tidal range or the water table at Launceston or along the North Esk Estuary which extends for some ten kilometres beyond the Inveresk Precinct. So not only is the North Esk River/Estuary subject to flood waters it is also subject to the affect of tides and sea level rises. In this era of climate change that should be a sobering thought to any thinking person.

The Inveresk area is zoned as Flood Inundation Zone and as such is subject to the Flood Inundation Code of the Launceston Interim Planning Scheme. …? The deliberate intention of the Flood Code was to permanently limit development in the flood plain (tidal flat), irrespective of any flood protection system or the levees. The Code was mandated by Treasury to protect the State from any future damage claim.  Moreover, it should not be forgotten, that the modelling done in 2006-7 and that resulted in the formulation of the Code, never considered climate change. As sea temperatures rise (witness the two degree rise already in sea temperatures off Tasmania’s East Coast), as sea levels rise and as the number and intensity of climate events - such as that experienced across Tasmania in June 2016 and now in Hobart – increase, rainfall intensities are predicted to increase by 20 percent. Consequently, the 1:200 AEP (a one in 200 year event) based on the 2007 modelling, may in fact be only 1:60 AEP (a one in sixty year event) Such conditions are already being taken into account in the Netherlands and North Germany, where flood/tidal water management and levees (dykes) have been a way of life for many hundreds of years and I suggest you examine the current trends in flood risk mitigation in these countries.   

During periods of high rainfall and flood warnings, water in what is one of the longest straight stretches of the North Esk River/Estuary rushes headlong in a direct line towards the Inveresk Precinct with the full combined force of the ebb tide and flood waters - twice daily. Every time there is a flood emergency for Launceston, Inveresk and, depending on the severity of the flooding expected, parts of Invermay, need to be evacuated. The dangers of power failures, pump failures, storm water and sewerage overflows, drinking water contamination and resulting loss of essential services are always present. In around 2011-2012 before the construction of the student accommodation there, the Inveresk precinct, including all the campus buildings, was evacuated at a monetary and time cost to the University.

These factors are all taken into account by the Insurance industry and already prior to/ as early as 2010-2012 resulted in large/trebling increases in insurance premiums across the whole Inveresk suburb.

In June 2016, the Inveresk Precinct, along with the entire suburb of Inveresk and most of Invermay was evacuated at great distress and at great cost and effort by residents and emergency services. Emergency personnel were working and preparing for days beforehand. The two days prior to the peak flood, and particularly the day of the flood traffic and evacuation activity across Inveresk and beyond were chaotic with lengthy traffic jams. All residents of Inveresk evacuated. (The process so distressed one elderly lady, who, although she lived on higher ground, never returned to her home and instead ended up in a nursing home.) With the early evening installation of flood gates across the Charles Street bridge – a highway, usually Northern Tasmania’s busiest traffic thoroughfare/intersection – and of the five bridges across the flood plain section of the North Esk River only one remained open. Even half of this bridge, Tamar Street (Victoria) bridge, was closed with only two lanes open. SES crews and police worked on into the night door-knocking Invermay residences encouraging even those living on higher ground to leave their homes. Evacuating the student accommodation added ten percent to the workload of the SES. The student population of that accommodation was later described by a senior emergency official as ‘a vulnerable population’ due to lack of own vehicles/transport and lack of available family support. In addition, the evacuation of its Inveresk campus cost the University $40,000. Meanwhile, ironically, the Newnham campus, safe on high ground with its facilities and infrastructure, was one of the city’s two flood evacuation centres.

While city and university officials held their breath for several hours during the early evening and well into the early hours of the next morning  that the levees would hold (they were leaking in several sections) or that flood water would not over-top them, the relocation proponents appeared to have simply breathed a sigh of relief, continue in denial and continue to ignore the warnings.

Events at the Sandy Bay campus should be heeded as further warning about the damage that can be caused by flood waters. Are you, Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and Members of the University Council, aware of the risks and dangers associated with Inveresk site? Are you aware that insurance industry research provides some of the best indicators of risk assessment as they apply to the Inveresk district? Are you aware that while events in Hobart and at Sandy Bay campus were ‘unprecedented’ and ‘catastrophic’, and that while the Sandy Bay campus is above sea level, Inveresk sits below high tide level.? Even in times of moderately heavy rain, storm water and sewerage spills can, and do, occur at any time across Inveresk and the university’s nominated relocation site. For example, such occurrences have previously affected the Museum’s conservation department and the School of Architecture.

Given all the above, are you prepared to dismiss the clear evidence before you of the inevitable risks inherent with the Inveresk site? Are you prepared to dismiss international best practice in flood management, sustainability and risk mitigation and thereby jeopardise the national/international reputation of the University of Tasmania? Are you prepared to deny the climate change effects on the North Esk Estuary and continue to push the campus relocation from the safety and security of the existing Newnham campus with its purpose-built facilities and infrastructure to the tidal flat /flood inundation zone?

Are you prepared to address the moral and ethical issues associated with increasing the risks and placing added pressure on emergency service workers, and placing lives at risk. On behalf of concerned ratepayers and residents of Launceston, the Tamar Valley and Northern Tasmania, and staff and students of Utas, I ask you to reverse the relocation plan with its misrepresentations and outrageous cost, which will exceed the stated $200 million, and to return to the original fully researched 2007-2017 Master Plan plan for the refurbishment of the Newnham campus for the cost of $59 million.

Yours faithfully,

Basil Fitch,     

4/25 Waveney Street, South Launceston 7249.                                      14 May  2018

IT IS WAY PAST TIME THAT THIS COUNCIL WAS GONE!

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Council and others should be expecting to face charges

Outside State Parliament councillors were warned that they may have to show cause why they should not be sacked.

Crime and Corruption advocate says charges should be laid and investigations into councils in Tasmania are well and truly overdue.

Citizens want to see more charges to the way local government works. In some cases, to see some elected represented work at all would be a change.

An activist said that she was not going to discuss details but she could tell the public that investigations are going on and have been for some considerable time. They look like they are nearing completion so far as the investigation into codes of conduct breaches go it seems.

She said that so far there were 196 conduct complaints but she was not prepared to discuss what they involve.

Meanwhile in Queensland the Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe sacked Mr Loft in February for misconduct. Mr Loft said he was disappointed by the ruling.

Mr Loft said "I can put my hand on my heart and say that everything I've done was with the best of intentions and for the ultimate benefit of the community that elected me and that I've been proud to serve as well as the staff on the council who were hurting," he said.

"With the benefit of hindsight, some of the decisions I've made have perhaps been naive."

Wouldn't it be wonderful if some councillors in Tasmania could fess-up to being naive.

The icing on the cake here is this vacuous agenda. Take note and think about what is not being discussed in open council.

COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY 7 MAY 2018 1.00pm City of Launceston COUNCIL AGENDA Monday 7 May 2018 Notice is hereby given that the Ordinary Meeting of the City of Launceston Council will be held at the Council Chambers, Town Hall, St John Street, Launceston: Date: 7 May 2018 Time: 1.00pm Section 65 Certificate of Qualified Advice Background Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires the General Manager to certify that any advice, information or recommendation given to Council is provided by a person with appropriate qualifications or experience. Declaration I certify that persons with appropriate qualifications and experience have provided the advice, information and recommendations given to Council in the Agenda Items for this Meeting. Michael Stretton General Manager City of Launceston COUNCIL AGENDA Monday 7 May 2018 27 April 2018 Mr Michael Stretton General Manager City of Launceston PO Box 396 LAUNCESTON TAS 7250 Dear Michael COUNCIL MEETING In accordance with regulation 4 of the Local Government (Meeting Regulations) 2015 which states: 4. Convening meeting of council (1) The mayor of a council may convene council meeting. I request that you make the necessary arrangements for the next Ordinary Meeting of Council to be convened on Monday, 7 May 2018 commencing at 1.00pm in the City of Launceston Council Chambers, Town Hall, St John Street, Launceston. Yours sincerely Alderman A M van Zetten MAYOR City of Launceston COUNCIL AGENDA Monday 7 May 2018 ORDER OF BUSINESS Item No Item Page No 1 OPENING OF MEETING - ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES 1 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 1 3 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 1 4 DEPUTATIONS 1 No Deputations have been identified as part of this Agenda 1 5 PETITIONS 1 No Petitions have been identified as part of this Agenda 1 6 COMMUNITY REPORTS 2 No Community Reports have been registered with Council as part of this Agenda 2 7 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2 7.1 Public Questions on Notice 2 7.1.1 Public Questions on Notice - Mr Basil Fitch - Council Meeting - 7 May 2018 3 7.2 Public Questions without Notice 4 8 PLANNING AUTHORITY 5 No Development Applications have been identified as part of this Agenda 5 9 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR 6 9.1 Mayor's Announcements 6 City of Launceston COUNCIL AGENDA Monday 7 May 2018 Item No Item Page No 10 ALDERMEN'S REPORTS 7 11 QUESTIONS BY ALDERMEN 7 11.1 Questions on Notice 7 No Aldermen's Questions on Notice have been identified as part of this Agenda 7 11.2 Questions without Notice 7 12 COMMITTEE REPORTS 8 12.1 Pedestrian and Bike Committee Meeting - 27 March 2018 8 12.2 Tender Review Committee Meeting - 23 April 2018 10 13 COUNCIL WORKSHOPS 12 14 NOTICES OF MOTION 12 No Notices of Motion have been identified as part of this Agenda 12 15 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTORATE ITEMS 13 15.1 CBD Promotional Service Agreement 2018-2022 13 16 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE ITEMS 17 No Items have been identified as part of this Agenda 17 17 QUEEN VICTORIA MUSEUM AND ART GALLERY DIRECTORATE ITEMS 17 No Items have been identified as part of this Agenda 17 18 INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES DIRECTORATE ITEMS 18 18.1 Lease - Lilydale Football Club 18 18.2 Lease - Ravenswood Over 50's Club Association Inc 22 City of Launceston COUNCIL AGENDA Monday 7 May 2018 Item No Item Page No 19 MAJOR PROJECTS DIRECTORATE ITEMS 26 No Items have been identified as part of this Agenda 26 20 CORPORATE SERVICES DIRECTORATE ITEMS 27 20.1 Budget Amendments (for Council) 27 21 GENERAL MANAGER'S DIRECTORATE ITEMS 32 No Items have been identified as part of this Agenda 32 22 URGENT BUSINESS 32 23 CLOSED COUNCIL No Items have been identified as part of this Agenda 32 32 24 MEETING CLOSURE

IS THERE REAL CHANGE IN THE AIR?

Ms Hickey's address on Tuesday tonight indicates she may not be relied on to always serve government interests.

The road ahead for the Hodgman Government has taken a sudden turn into the unknown, after new Speaker Sue Hickey declared she would vote independently on government bills. ...................... The former Hobart lord mayor became Tasmania's new Speaker today after a shock move which stunned her Liberal colleagues. ...................... This evening she addressed the House of Assembly, saying she would not be sitting in Liberal Party meetings and would vote on each bill on its merits. ...................... Ms Hickey was elected with Labor and Green support ahead of former minister Rene Hidding in a move that blindsided a government whose power rests on a one-seat majority. \

Key points: 

• Rene Hidding was to be voted Speaker with the support of all 13 Liberal MPs 
• Liberal colleague Sue Hickey was nominated by Labor leader Rebecca White 
• Hickey, with the support of Labor and Greens, won 13 votes to Hidding's 12

The speakership is a prestigious parliamentary position that the Liberal Party had set aside for Mr Hidding. ...................... He gave up his ministerial portfolios in readiness to take on the role, after Premier Will Hodgman announced him as the Government's nominee for the position in March. ...................... Ms Hickey is a recent addition to the Liberal team, winning the seat of Denison at the March 3 state election. ...................... In a departure from the expected script, Labor Opposition Leader Rebecca White nominated Ms Hickey for Speaker, a move backed by the Parliament's two Greens MPs. ...................... The election was conducted via a secret ballot, but with Labor and the Greens making up 12 votes in the chamber, one Liberal vote would have been needed to elect Ms Hickey. ...................... When the result was announced, Ms Hickey had 13 votes to Mr Hidding's 12. ...................... Sitting in the chamber, Mr Hidding looked less than impressed with his Liberal colleague. ...................... In March, Mr Hidding was talking up his credentials for becoming Speaker, and said his 22 years in Parliament would put him in good stead for the role. ...................... Outside Parliament, he accepted the outcome by saying "that's democracy". ...................... "In democracy, there are uncertain outcomes and I'm OK with that, and I wish Speaker Hickey all the best." ...................... Mr Hidding said he said he was not surprised by the move. ...................... "In politics, if it's possible it can be probable," he said. ...................... Speakership move not planned, says Hickey ...................... Rebecca White ...................... Thrilled an all women delegation was able to present our new Speaker to the Governor. With an independent Speaker, Tasmania will have a parliament that reflects the will of the people and acts in the best interest of the public May 1, 2018 ...................... Outside Parliament Sue Hickey said she had not betrayed her Liberal colleagues. ...................... "I've had a vote of confidence from the Parliament," she said. ...................... At lunchtime, Ms Hickey said she was still a member of the Liberal party but was not sure if she would be by the end of the day. ...................... "Not certain, there's a few people a bit grumpy," she said. ...................... Ms Hickey said the speakership was not her idea. ...................... "I don't think you would call it planned at all," she said. ...................... "I'm in shock, I'm very thrilled but I'm still digesting it all." ...................... Ms Hickey also denied she had accepted the nomination because she was grumpy about not being given a portfolio in Will Hodgman's Government. ...................... "No, this is politics," she said. 'Hickey will support Government': Hodgman As Labor leader Rebecca White exited Parliament, she said she had nominated Sue Hickey because she wanted "a parliament that reflects the will of the people". ...................... Ms White tweeted her pleasure as Ms Hickey's election: "Thrilled an all-women delegation was able to present our new speaker to the Governor. With an independent speaker, Tasmania will have a parliament that reflects the will of the people and acts in the best interest of the public." ...................... Premier Will Hodgman issued a statement to congratulate Ms Hickey and to say she would not disrupt the Government's agenda. ...................... "The Speaker of the House continues to be a member of the Liberal Party, as such, Madam Speaker has provided a guarantee of supply and confidence to my Majority Hodgman Liberal Government," he said.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

All on the never never.

In reference to the culture among the Board of the Commonwealth Bank and their failure to do anything about the entrenched misconduct among the bank's employees and executives, a report by someone on the banking royal commission talked used the term "dulling of the senses" and "wilful ignorance". (ABC radio 2 May'18)

Same applies to Launceston City Council - they are so entrenched in the culture of borrowing to fund wasteful projects, or projects of dubious value while so many other things need fixing. The aldermen have had their senses dulled by all the hype around these unnecessary and expensive alterations.

Many of the aldermen seem to think they don't have to do any due diligence. Well, actually they do - it's in their code of conduct. 

So the aldermen need to check that out and start moving their eyelids and wake up to what they are doing. Paving stones from WA! 

Huge amounts of land to an already existing university based on outlandish statements! and now a crazy traffic 'plan' intended to deal with a chaos of their own making! 

LCC aldermen and management all suffering a severe dulling of the senses!

IN LAUNCESTON – The Public Space Without Bothersome Public Consultation

All this on money borrowed, $millions upon $millions, on the ratepayers behalf, on the ratepayers' credit card, on the strength of no due diligence, in order that ratepayers can keep on paying for something they have absolutely no say in. 

ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS!!

The decisions are taken by management somewhere well away from the light and the aldermen just look the other way it seems.  Maybe they are just left out. However, ratepayers in Launceston get to pay a $500pa rate premium to be burdened with and unwisely. 

And they get slugged with unjustified rate rises!!

Management makes decisions like ordering and shipping paving stones from Western Australia at great expense and the Mayor and his merry band of aldermen look on without lifting a finger, all the time collecting their ratepayer funded aldermens allowances.

WHEN IS ENOUGH ACTUALLY ENOUGH?? 

Who is doing the numbers at Launceston Town Hall?

Just who is doing the numbers at Launceston Town Hall?

With two chartered accountants on Council Ald Finlay probably feels that she needn’t do the numbers. If she were more inclined to do a bit of adding up and taking away every now and then well she could claim to be some kind of critic. Apparently, she is not inclined. 

Spruiking ‘The Hawks’ as she does, and is doing now with a Hawks’ win in Launceston, she obviously feels that she can make a lot of noise without delivering on the substance. 

Saul Eslake tells us for every dollar spent on 'The Hawks' there is a $7.50 return to Launceston. If this is true then it will be the Airbnb proprietors, the hoteliers, the restaurateurs, a few retailers and the car hire firms who’ll be raking that in. It will not be distributed all that well throughout the community – at least not within the municipality. 

However, when we take into account the fact that Launceston's rates are set to rise by 2.8% to cover this council’s excesses, this alone makes nonsense of the Ald. Finlay spruiked ‘Hawkes Benefits’ and her prioritising. 

Then again, Ald. Finlay doesn’t do numbers as it seems that yet again she leaves that to the chartered accountants while she plays with the 'nice bits'. 

Someone must be benefiting from the capital expenditure going on at UTAS Stadium. The numbers there are starting to be quite impressive. With $1.62Million capital expenditure being spent at UTAS Stadium in total, that is $660K spent on lighting at UTAS Stadium, and $430 spent on a state of the art score board, and $280K being spent on a drop-in cricket pitch, and $250K spent on a turf farm to grow grass for UTAS Stadium, none of this is chicken feed. 

For the 'number crunchers' who pay rates, that looks like a $55 per ratepayer subsidy on capital expenditure at UTAS's York Park egged on by managerially inspired aldermanic enthusiasms. 

So, we well might ask Ald. Finlay in whose laps is all this largess might be falling? We could even ask if she is asking and when she will be letting us in on her questioning? Given that she is a Hawks spruiker and that she ranks this football team above the Launceston General Hospital and The Gorge, surely she will be able to share the news with her constituency. 

The UTAS Stadium cum York Park council operation is a cost centre that's being budgeted to generate a $2.8 million loss. That's getting close to being $100 per rateable property – every last one! The city's ratepayers cop it again. 

It is being claimed that every attendee at UTAS Stadium is being subsidised but ask the council and they wont tell you by how much. Ratepayers are stumping up this money but the numbers are a mystery for some reason. If it isn’t the case, then Ald Finlay will surely have the numbers to put all to right for us. If she doesn’t have them, well she will be able to prevail upon the chartered accountants on council to give them to her – perhaps. 

As likely as not the numbers will come to her in a closed council meeting, or even at one of those cutting and drying 'workshops' – the ones held between formal council meetings to work things out. 

Launceston’s ratepayers have not got much to worry about as council divides up the spoils and spreads ratepayers’ money about in the hope that something will get better soon. However, it would be good to get some reassurances. 

Yes, yes, it is very good for the Hawks and other clubs to be playing some of their games in Launceston. It is also very good for them to be bringing their supporters to the city to spend some money. The players and their supporters are all very welcome as Launceston transitions into a 'tourism centre'. 

However, let's have a bit of truth telling, some equitable distribution of costs and benefits and then some reality checking thrown in for good measure. Launceston's ratepayers cannot be carrying the can for the whole region all the time as Launceston is not the centre of the universe even if this bunch of aldermen deems it to be so.