GREEN LOCALGOVT ELECTION ALERT

Tasmania's Local Council elections will be held in September - October 2018 (except Glenorchy). 

Nominations for [Green] Party preselection are now open 

and will close on SUNDAY 6 MAY 2018. 

The online nomination form can be found here. https://tgelection2018.wufoo.eu/forms/z1xk2e2z167ixh2/ 

The Tasmanian Greens currently have nine party endorsed members in six local governments and we are aiming to increase this number at this election. 

The State Election Campaign Committee has prioritised fourteen local councils based on votes received at recent elections and party-endorsed incumbents. However, all members and supporters are encouraged to consider the importance of having Greens members in public office and nominations will be welcomed for all local council elections.

We are aiming to increase the number of local councils where Greens members are councillors. We are also aiming to increase the number of Greens councillors where there are incumbent Greens councillors. .

If you are a member who is passionate about your local community and want to see the Party's policies progressively implemented in your local council, discuss this with other party members and seek their honest feedback. You will need two members to nominate you and two to be referees. 

A member may wish to nominate for the mayoral or deputy mayoral ballots in their local council. State Executive has decided the Party will preselect not more than one member for a mayoral or deputy mayoral ballot. The preselection for mayor will occur first. If a member nominates for both, but is not preselected for the mayoral ballot, they will be included in the preselection ballot for deputy mayor. Please ensure that you are eligible to nominate, including checking the Local Government Act 1993 Sections 254 - 262

 (https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1993-095) 

If you have any questions feel free to contact Grant Finlay via email ... "Election Coordinator" election@tas.greens.org.au

Kind regards,    Grant Finlay 

NB: A person in the LCC Network received this information for distribution

PURPOSE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN TASMANIA

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

20. Functions and powers [purpose]

(1) In addition to any functions of a council in this or any other Act, a council has the following functions [purpose] : 

(a) to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community; 

(b) to represent and promote the interests of the community; 

(c) to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area.

 (2) In performing its functions [fulfilling its purpose], a council is to consult, involve and be accountable to the community.

SEE ALSO:
http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/271170/Good_Governance_Guide_May_2016.pdf

REALITY ALERT: CHANGES IN THE AIR DETECTED

Click on the image to enlarge

This article, albeit that it is written in Hobart about Hobart, sends messages of hope and change north to Launceston. The notion that UTAS is/was going to take over everything at Inveresk set off a chain reaction of silliness – mostly coming from an epicentre at Launceston's Town Hall. 

The most refreshing thing to read in this article is that there is a fair chance of change. That is so far a UTAS is concerned. With the change, decision making is more than likely to have an ethical foundation with Prof. Black at the UTAS helm.

Importantly Prof. Black has "drawn a line under the reign of former the former vice chancellor Peter Rathjen." 

In accord with all this, Prof. Black is calling for a debate on the university's future direction. This will be, and is being, welcomed by the academic community in Northern Tasmania. Prof. Black offers some hope that this debate will be real, credible and that it will lead to somewhere that is really interesting.

It seems that one can now actually hope for a search for better understandings of what universities can be, and should be, in the 21st Century – even in Tasmania.

What Prof. Black does straight up is acknowledge that UTAS ranks somewhere around 300th in the world. This is something Tasmanians were unlikely to hear up until now. All kinds spokespeople have been out and about shouting from the roof tops that the university is 'punching way above it weight'. This was always a deluded and delusional marketing ploy. 

This kind of nonsense was always counterproductive and the penny has now dropped it seems with students measuring up their options internationally. The facts do not always match the rhetoric – and that in the end is rather poor marketing. 

This is not to say that UTAS has not in the past, and cannot, and will not, deliver on its promise of quality into the future. It can and will.

Prof. Black's suggestion of a "place based model" for UTAS is a breath of fresh air that hopefully will over time blow away the rancid smell of delusional and baseless opportunism.

Also, the search for a "the right size model", plus ways to achieve excellence, flags a realistic aspiration for quality – and the ability to deliver on it.

In Launceston, students and university staff complained about a 'toxic culture of retribution' and it seems that Prof Black may well be aware of what he walked in to.

In regard to UTAS, Launceston Council has been imagining itself living in some kind of fairyland that was about to have zillions of dollars dropped in from above via Prof. Rathjen's, and by extension and association, Launceston's dumbed down post secondary programs. That thought bubble seems to have been pricked.

Clearly UTAS's new vice chancellor, Prof. Black, is doing a timely reality check and it can only be hoped that Launceston's aldermen can join him and fess-up to their folly. Once they have done so, they might well beg for forgiveness from their constituency.

Aldermen's constituencies are 'browned-off' but the Local Govt. elections are not all that far away. Personal reality checks could well mean that some aldermen could yet find the "need to spend more time with my family" and new players may well enter the field too.

Interesting times ahead!

ACCOUNTABILITY 1ST, ACCOUNTABILITY 2ND, ACCOUNTABILITY 3RD & NOW

The story goes that responsibility comes strait out of accountability. Launceston would like a bit of both thank you ... and now!

Ratepayers 1st, 
Ratepayers 2nd 
Ratepayers 3rd!

•

SIGN UP NOW
 MAKE THINGS CHANGE

•

eMAIL: Martin Notcher hillside@tassie.net.au

BE AWARE AND ALERT: IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR FOR COUNCILS

The National Automobile Museum Of Tasmania's chairman Harry Williscroft and manager Phil Costello look at the Lindsay Street site that the museum will move into to make way for the UTAS expansion. Picture

APRIL 5 2018 - 3:00PM Approval for operating budget, council fees on agenda for City of Launceston meeting Lucy Stone .......................... City of Launceston council will continue efforts to amend its planning scheme to allow for the relocation of the National Automobile Museum to the Riveredge industrial precinct. .......................... The council is seeking to modify a clause in the Launceston Interim Planning Scheme 2015 that restricts development within the precinct, which is also covered by the 2008 Invermay-Inveresk Flood Deed of Agreement with the state government. .......................... The clause, if amended, would specifically allow only for a museum within the precinct, but no other large community meeting or entertainment areas. .......................... Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein wrote to the council in December last year saying he was satisfied the Deed did not prohibit a museum and it did not need to be amended. .......................... A letter from the Tasmanian Planning Commission to the council, dated February 2, noted the commission was “not satisfied” the proposed amendment would “clarify, simplify or remove an anomaly” from the planning scheme. .......................... The Commission recommended a period of public exhibition, which was completed. .......................... At Monday’s council meeting, the council will consider the next steps in presenting the four public representations and a report to the commission, seeking approval to amend the clause. .......................... The council will also consider releasing its proposed 2018-2019 operating budget and annual plan for public comment. .......................... Council fees for the 2018-2019 financial year will be considered, requiring an absolute majority of aldermen for approval. .......................... The proposed new playground at the Cataract Gorge will also be up for approval at Monday’s City of Launceston council meeting. .......................... The $650,000 proposal was first announced in December last year, and sparked some backlash amid concerns further development would negatively impact the relatively natural landscape around First Basin. .......................... The new playground would raise the ground level of the existing plat area by 3.3 metres to be in line with the pathway below the Basin Cafe to reduce the risk of flood damage, with a ‘gentle slope’ down to the swimming pool. .......................... Aspects of heritage and culture are also considered within the application, with several submissions received by council from stakeholders expressing concern about the need for increased parking and easy access to the Basin.

______________________________

APRIL 8 2018  City of Launceston Council to release 2018-2019 operating budget for public comment Lucy Stone.......................... Residents can expect a 2.8 per cent rise in general rates under the City of Launceston’s 2018-2019 budget, now released for public comment. .......................... The median residential rate for the municipality is now $1469.24, including a $172.58 Fire Service Levy and $105 for waste charges – an average rise of $42.68 since last year. .......................... The residential rates charge includes a $4 charge for one entry token to the waste centre. .......................... Rates for primary production are expected to increase by 1.17 per cent. .......................... City of Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten said he believed the rates had been kept as low as possible in a complicated budget under pressure from “extraneous” costs. .......................... A reduced TasWater distribution, increase in depreciation and ongoing maintenance costs, an increase in labour costs after EBA negotiations, and the cost of upcoming local government elections in October, all placed pressure on the budget, he said. .......................... The council has also resolved to pass on the Fire Service Levy to all retirement homes, which the council collects on behalf of the state government. .......................... Alderman van Zetten said retirement homes had been receiving a rates remission for the levy, with the council shouldering the bill. .......................... “That has meant that the council's ratepayers have effectively been subsidising that remission,” he said. .......................... "We no longer believe that is sustainable nor equitable for council and its ratepayers.” .......................... Alderman van Zetten said the council had faced “a number of challenges” in establishing the operating budget but had determined to maintain a $188,000 underlying surplus. .......................... The 2017-2018 underlying surplus was $1.3 million. .......................... A capital expenditure of $20.8 million is also proposed, including $5.43 million for road upgrades, and $2.1 million for UTAS Stadium and Invermay Park. .......................... Public submissions will end on April 30, with council making final determinations on the annual budget and rates on June 18.

..............................................................................

EDITOR'S NOTE: Resident's and ratepayers need to be mindful the this year is an ELECTION YEAR for councils. In recent times this council has borrowed extraordinary amounts of money for questionable infrastructure and what could turn out to be sweet heart deals made behind closed doors. Given the confidentiality of just about every expenditure ( the Mayor's “extraneous” costs) ratepayers need to be extra vigilant in regard to this budget given that each time a rock is turned over another 'expense' turns up. 

This Saturday it appears as if Council is launching ahead with the appointment of a Cultural Officer seemingly to head up a new 'council unit' before a community consultation process is completed and new consultants have handed their advice to Council. WHY IS THIS? WHAT ARE THE COST IMPLICATIONS?

A close examination of the budget will almost surely expose more than a few financial follies and there is not a lot of time available. It will be easier to look the other way AGAIN but it really is time for a RETHINK ... given that it is an election year!!

A CULTURAL UNIT FOR LAUNCESTON

There is a perception that the proposed 'cultural unit' is intended to be a part of Launceston Council's operational structure. Likewise, that perception is underpinned by a notion that there is no imperative on the part of Council's operational wing to actively engage with, take advice from or initiate collaborative/cooperative concept development with the 'cultural communities' that are the subject of the proposed unit's work – albeit that this ambiguous currently.

As a 'cost centre' the unit is bound to be a drain at some level on Council's recurrent budget. The extent to which it may be is open to speculation but it is clear that Launceston's aldermen have not actively considered the fiscal implications of putting such a unit in place – at least not yet. This being the case the unit's future must be regarded as being 'politically vulnerable'.

Given that there has been no clear and unambiguous 'purpose' for the proposed unit set out so far it follows that the proposal is unsupported by a set of objectives. Likewise, the rationales in support of the initiative are unclear and  far from being anything that might be considered 'unambiguous'.

That this is the outcome of a consultancy it is hard to imagine that the city's aldermen have serious interrogated the proposal and the veracity of the apparent assumptions informing the imitative. In fact, allowing this proposal to proceed to its current stage of development without serious investigation around the table in open Council raises a series of uncomfortable questions – question that deserve further consideration.

CLICK HERETO GO TO THE FULL REPORT

A recipe for corruption

TASMANIA - a special case

Tasmania is the only state in Australia with no requirement for local government candidates to ever disclose donations or gifts, no limits on the amount donated or who can donate..

A recipe for corruption

We’ve been hearing a lot about Local Councils in the media recently and most of this has been for the wrong reasons. Inquiries have been conducted, Councils have been dismissed and currently the State Government is conducting a review of the Local Government Act.

One of the terms of reference of this review is: “Local Government elections – electoral rolls, funding and advertising” and one of the questions posed in the first round of submissions was “Should there be restrictions on the donations local government electoral candidates are permitted to receive? If so, what should the restrictions include?”

Approximately 81% of those that addressed this question submitted that there should be restrictions on the donations and there were a number of comments that it was not appropriate for candidates to receive donations from building developers as this could lead to a clear conflict of interest and that donations should be disclosed.

It should be noted that Tasmania is currently the only state in Australia that has no limits on how much a candidate for local government can accept in donations, no restrictions on who can make donations and no requirement whatsoever for any disclosure. This could be considered an invitation to corruption and, as such, should be addressed appropriately.

Despite this strong support for restrictions on candidate’s donations, including one from the Local Government Association, the Draft Bill does not address issues of candidate donations at all.

It takes only a few minutes to make a submission and they should be sent to should be sent HERE before 5.00 pm on the Friday 5 May 2017. Background information is available here: Consultation feedback 

• Candidates can legally spend as much as they want on self-promotion in the months prior to the election
• Their spending is only limited by regulation for the few weeks prior to the actual vote.
• They never, ever have to disclose to the public where any donations come from or how much they have received. Local government is big business
• Hobart City Council controls assets of over $1 billion and has an income of over $50 million from rates alone
• Councillors make decisions that have significant financial consequences for individuals and businesses. With no regulations the temptation may be irresistible for some candidates and those who might profit from their decisions
• There is a very fine line between "donations" and "bribes"
• Many state politicians start off in local government: any corruption at this level may be transferred on

GO TO: http://www.fundinganddisclosure.org.au/

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