New state-wide planning scheme to unlock State’s potential

29 October 2015

Govt Media Release 

The Hodgman Liberal Government pledged to unlock Tasmania’s economic potential and create jobs through a single state-wide planning scheme.

I welcome the passage of this legislation through the crucial committee stage in the Legislative Council today.

The Government wants the new planning system to be up and running in full by 2017, one year ahead of schedule.

Under the new laws there will be around 80 per cent state-wide consistency which will provide more clarity and certainty for everyone. Currently there is only about 15 per cent consistency across Tasmania’s 29 councils in the three regions.

The planning system will be faster, fairer, simpler and cheaper which will encourage more confidence for those looking to invest and expand. It will provide the right platform for more economic development and ultimately create more jobs.

The Tasmanian Government, in partnership with the Planning Reform Taskforce, was determined to redesign the planning system which was a nightmare that Labor and the Greens were too lazy to tackle.

Tasmanians told us that they wanted this planning mess sorted out and we listened and acted.

Importantly the new laws are the result of extensive consultation with major stakeholders including the TFGA, the Master Builders’ Association, Local Government Association, the HIA and many other individuals with extensive planning and legal experience.

We will continue to consult and listen as the State Planning Provisions are developed ready for extensive public consultation early in 2016.

More Media Releases from Peter Gutwein

More Media Releases from the Minister for Planning and Local Government

MAYORS, COUNCILLORS & ALDERMEN WANT MORE MONEY

 Print  Emai Facebook  Twitter 

RELATED STORY: Almost half of Tasmanian councils running a deficit: auditor-general

RELATED STORY: Clarence Mayor Doug Chipman elected LGAT president

MAP: TAS

Pay rates for mayors and councillors will be reviewed and they could be eligible for superannuation after a vote at the Local Government Association of Tasmania's (LGAT) annual general meeting.

The motion was passed with a view to professionalising the local government sector and attracting younger people to local council positions.

Circular Head Mayor Darryl Quilliam said he worked hard at all hours of the day and was paid about $40,000 a year. His councillors are paid about $10,000 a year.

Mayor Quilliam still works as a sales representative for an agribusiness company.

He said being a mayor was a big job and he loved doing it, but pay and superannuation needed to be addressed. "It's not a job that you take on for the money," he said. ..... CLICK HERE TO GO TO ABC SOURCE AND ACCESS THE COMPLETE STORY

OUR NOTE: It seems that LGAT is either out of step with the community debate to do with council amalgamations or is right on the money! 

WHEN, and not if, Tasmania's councils are amalgamated into a reasonable number of councils commensurate with need, and ratepayers capacity to pay, there will be plenty of money to pay Councillors and Aldermen stipends that are appropriate to their work load.

However, when that all comes about there will need to be a greater level of professionalism on display than is generally the case now. This is an unfolding story and it is as much to do with amalgamation as it is to do with the elected representatives' stipends.

There must be a 'root and branch reimagination' of Local Government and that must include the professional standards of council officers as much as it would the elected representatives. It's high time that the Minister got on with the job and started the process right now given that the call for "more money" is out there.

Jack Bauer

The Flat Rate Decoy Debate Again

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STORY

Launceston council looks at flat rate

By JAMES BRADY Oct. 29, 2015, 10:23 p.m.

A FLAT rating system for Launceston could be introduced for the city as early as 2017. 

 ‘‘Serious investigations’’ into a differential flat rate model have been conducted by Launceston aldermen, which have included information sessions with Brighton Council.

Brighton was threatened with legal action when it moved to introduce a flat rate about eight years ago, however its model has since been approved in legislation.

Brighton mayor Tony Foster said Launceston engaged their council to have modelling created for the city.

Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski said the council re-adopted its annual assessed value policy for the 2016-17 financial year, but had explored different models for the future.

‘‘The council has spoken with representatives of Brighton Council and other councils and authorities about various different ratings models, but the council has no position on a future ratings model at this stage,’’ Mr Dobrzynski said. 

Alderman Robin McKendrick said he had pursued a flat rate model for the past 18 months, and expected further discussion with the council in the coming months........ ‘‘AAV is a wealth tax on a property, whereas with a flat rate everyone is treated on same rate – you can adjust that accordingly to make sure everybody gets the same service,’’ Alderman McKendrick said. ....‘‘There have been serious discussions with Bright Council to get detail of how it could operate in our city – there is no reason, I believe, why it won’t work,’’ Alderman McKendrick said.... Cr Foster said the model took angst out of rate rises over and above CPI, and that Brighton had CPI increases for the past nine years. ... Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten said Brighton’s suggestion, if the system was to be delivered, was to wait until the next revaluation of property in 2016-17. ... ‘‘My understanding of their discussion, when they came to our workshop, was that it was a better timing,’’ Alderman van Zetten said. ...‘‘I’ve got to see the modelling yet; it wouldn’t change largely the rates we bring in, but it would distribute the rates differently.... My point of view is that those in the Northern suburbs should not be significantly disadvantaged.’’ ... Deputy mayor Rob Soward said there was a lot of positive feedback regarding a flat rating system in Launceston ...‘‘I’m very excited about the opportunity; the information we got from Brighton sets us on a very, very good path moving forward with what we do for developing our rating systems .... Aldermen Darren Alexander and Hugh McKenzie said they were open to any conversation that may mean the community may pay less in their rates ... Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein said each council was responsible for its own rating system, which was dictated by outlines in the Local Government Act. ... CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STORY IN THE EXAMINER

OUR NOTE: Well it seems pretty clear that Launceston Council's AGM is immanent and that the growing contention over 'Council performance', strategically, Council is attempting to reclaim the agenda. 

The 'flat rate' issue is an issue that'll deliver every time and you only need to look at the comments section below this EXAMINER STORY for the evidence.  

Basically Launceston Council is increasingly under pressure to deliver which is why in part we see Council start to embrace 'social media' – something it should have done eons ago.  

There are so many 'furphies' floating about in regard to service delivery at 'Launceston's Town Hall'. 'Spin doctoring' is becoming  the standard in what passes for marketing at Town Hall. Its interesting that Town Hall seems to have stopped posting its MEDIA RELEASES March 2014 in favour of greater opacity and a predisposition towards Machiavellianism. 

We can only hope that this latest foray in the 'Flat Rate Debate"will deliver something more than it has up to now. All this is starting look a tad Claytonesk! What is most bemusing is the notion of a variable flat rate across the municipality. In any event t'd be good to hear how Launceston's rates were going to FALL to bring them in line rates with elsewhere.

There is a book being run at the moment on Launceston's rate-take falling and currently its 100 to 1 on. Let's see where all this goes with LGAT calling for an increase in Aldermanic allowances today!

Tandra Vale

The Latest Spin On The Launceston Aquatic and Leisure Centre

Launceston City Council is attempting to placate ratepayers via social media, facebook in particular. It is good to see the Council embracing social media but it would be more helpful if the administration wasn't trying to be 'SPIN DOCTORS' and attempted to answer the question people are actually asking and really want answers to. 

Well make of what you find below and on the Council website and post further question in the comments section.

"Facts on the Launceston Leisure and Aquatic Centre

The Launceston Aquatic and Leisure Centre is proving incredibly popular in Northern Tasmania, attracting 390,419 people last year.

Income at the centre has increased by 67 per cent since 2011-12.

However the Council agrees that the annual operating cost of the facility is higher than we would like.

If you'd like to know more, we've put together this information to give people a clearer understanding of the challenges we face in operating the facility and what we're doing to reduce its operational costs."

WEBSITE LINK: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=787

The Council has put together some fast facts

 CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

THE WEBSITE ASKS 

"Want to know more?"

We certainly do and let's start with:

• What is the ratepayer subsidy per entrant or the cost of an entry over and above the entry fee?
• What is the total capital expenditure for Launceston Aquatic since 2010-2011?
• What is the total projected capital expenditure for Launceston Aquatic for 2015 -16?
• What is the total depreciation allowance for Launceston Aquatic per year 2010-11 - to 2014-15?
• What is the current staff level for Launceston Aquatic expressed as effective full-time positions?
• What is the cost of external consultancies relative to Launceston Aquatic?
• What is the total income amount generated at Launceston Aquatic over and above entry fees for 2014-15?
• What is the interest cost for the loans required to build the facility and subsequent capital expenditure?

We look forward to the publication of this information and more.

LOCAL GOVT NSW: ‘Fit for the Future’ reform agenda,

Terms of reference 
 1. That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 6 inquire into and report on local government in New South Wales and in particular: 

 (a) the New South Wales Government’s ‘Fit for the Future’ reform agenda, 
 (b) the financial sustainability of the local government sector in New South Wales, including the measures used to benchmark local government as against the measures used to benchmark State and Federal Government in Australia, New South Wales, 
 (c) the performance criteria and associated benchmark values used to assess local authorities in 
 (d) the scale of local councils in New South Wales, 
 (e) the role of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) in reviewing the future of local government in New South Wales, assisted by a South Australian commercial consultant, 
 (f) the appropriateness of the deadline for ‘Fit for the Future’ proposals, 
 (g) costs and benefits of amalgamations for local residents and businesses, 
 (h) evidence of the impact of forced mergers on council rates drawing from the recent 
 (i) evidence of the impact of forced mergers on local infrastructure investment and 
 (j) evidence of the impact of forced mergers on municipal employment, including aggregate (k) the known and or likely costs and benefits of amalgamations for local communities, 
 (l) the role of co-operative models for local government including the ‘Fit for the Futures’ Queensland experience and other forced amalgamation episodes, maintenance, redundancy costs, 
(m) how forced amalgamation will affect the specific needs of regional and rural councils and 
 (n) protecting and delivering democratic structures for local government that ensure it remains 
 (o) the impact of the ‘Fit for the Future’ benchmarks and the subsequent IPART performance own Joint Organisations, Strategic Alliances, Regional Organisations of Councils, and other shared service models, such as the Common Service Model, communities, especially in terms of its impact on local economies, close to the people it serves, criteria on councils’ current and future rate increases or levels, and

 iv Report 1 - October 2015 (p) any other related matter. 

 2. That with the agreement of the committee participating members’ travel costs be covered by the committee. 

 3. That the committee report by Monday 17 August 2015, unless the committee resolves to table at a later date.* 

GO TO THE DOCUMENT: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3jiXZGKg16ecDFSOWxuZDhETDg/view

Council Accountability Reporting Time

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Here are the links to candidates' answers to ratepayers' questions

• All inclusive responses by all aldermanic candidates CLICK HERE
• Mayor Albert van Zetten's responses CLICK HERE as a mayoral candidate
• Ald. Hugh McKenzie's responses CLICK HERE as a mayoral candidate

The Tasmanian Ratepayers Association is willing to publish on this site an update of Alderperson's policy priorities. 

Margaret Thatcher is famous for saying many things and not the least for saying " nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus". It appears that Launceston's Aldermen are seeking a consensus, a pathway even, in regard to basically maintaining the current state of affairs in local Govt. What are their individual arguments for this? How comfortable are they with consensus if it exists?

This Annual General Meeting may well be a time for Alderpersons outside the "consensus circle" to alert their constituency to their mind shift,  their changed attitude,  their responses to new understandings or some future vision.

Ratepayers wish to hear from their representative on what matters to them rather that Council management's spin on "operational matters".

Launceston Council's Operational Reporting

The QVMAG Annual Report has gone to Council but its not yet available on the QVMAG Website. Presumably it will be found here – http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/qvmag/index.php?c=71 – sometime in the future but in the meantime the The Examiner tells us something of its contents here – http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3449151/qvmag-to-be-highlighted-as-major-tourist-location/?cs=95 – and ratepayers should take a good look.

Right beside the report on the QVMAG's report there is a report on the $25,000 of grants to community groups. Rather curiously The Examiner does not tell its readers how much the QVMAG cost the ratepayers for 2014-2015. Then again neither do we seem to get clear and unconfused financial reporting of the Aquatic Centre's or Aurora Stadium's costs it seems.

It also seems that the Aldermen are happy enough with all this as clearly they are not asking questions and accepting reports presumably because they approve of the costs. There are business people amongst the aldermen and one has to wonder if any of this brand of accountability was applied to their restaurant, garage, office, pizza shop would they be always so happy with the performances of these "council operations".

Soon we will hear that "nobody attends Council AGM" and that its "not worth holding one". As each year passes the accountability bar, in Launceston at least, gets lower and lower but do we really deserve the councils we vote for?

TV

ACCOUNTABILITY: Wollongong Shows The Way

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

If you look over the horizon, pay attention to Local Govt. over there, you find all kinds of surprising things. Who would have thought that Woolongong might prove to be an exemplar of CIVIC ACCOUNTABILITY. If you have ever had anything to do with the city you would know that 'politically & socially' it is a very interesting place. 

Woolongong's population is culturally diverse and with a long history as one of Australia's premier industrial cities. So its not so surprising that the city's citizens demand the level of real accountability reflected on this page on the city's website. 

It is interesting to see that the city has set up multiple Reference and Advisory Groups and that their minutes are publicly available. This is diametrically opposed to the modus operandi that operates in the City of Launceston

In NSW "Section 355 Committees" handle a range of issues enabling Local Govt to be both more responsive to community needs and aspirations plus being more accountable. Albeit not a direct comparison Tasmania's Local Govt. Act and it Section 62, item 2 in particular, affords Council managements to operate in a paradigm of dubious accountability.

There is the basis here for a fruitful conversation IF anyone in Local Govt. is up for it as Tasmania Local Govt. Act is clear deficient in so many ways. The Act is broken and it does need fixing!

THE TEXT FROM THE GRAPHIC ABOVE

"Wollongong City Council supports a number of community Reference Groups and Advisory Committees as a means of engaging with the community

Reference Groups

Reference group members provide Council management with information, knowledge and advice on their specific area of interest or issue and group members should also represent the views of the community. A central focus of the reference groups is to provide input into Council’s Community Strategic Plan and other relevant Council policies.

Advisory Committees

Advisory Committee Members provide expert advice to Council management on their area of expertise, relative to the functions of the particular Committee.

Section 355 Committees

Section 355 Committees are delegated, by resolution of Council, to exercise particular functions of Council and to provide advice to Council management in relation to the functions of the particular Committee. These Committees have limited delegations granted to them by Council, which allows the Committee to make decisions on Council’s behalf, within the limits of those delegations.

For details of each group or committee, such as past meeting minutes, charters and contact details, select the group below.

Please note that minutes for upcoming meetings will be posted after each meeting. For details of upcoming meetings, please see the calendar of meetings webpage."

There is much to be gleaned from the NSW Govt's efforts to reduce the number of Sydney's Council and arguably Tasmania needs to be paying closer attention rather than being putting stones in the road of reimagining Local Govt. in Tasmania. 

Australia wide Local Govt. operates on an outmoded model (18th/19th C model?) and it is high time that a model with contemporaneous relevance and accountability was settled upon.

The Mayor of Ashfield, Lucille McKenna today said she would seek an urgent meeting with her fellow Councillors to determine if Ashfield Council would seek further talks with its neighbouring councils about a possible amalgamation. 

Her comments follow the announcement by the Premier today urging council’s to reconsider their position in relation to amalgamations before a final decision on the future of local councils is made.

 “Ashfield Council is financially sustainable and has the necessary operational and strategic capacity to deliver high quality services for the local Ashfield community,” Mayor McKenna said. 

“Our services are recognised as models of leading practice and, by the State Government’s own TCorp (NSW Treasury Corporations) assessment, Ashfield is in a sound financial position. 

Read more here 

http://www.ashfield.nsw.gov.au/files/Media_Release_-_Mayor_seeks_urgent_talks_on_future_of_Ashfield.pdf

CLICK HERE

ASHFIELD FACEbook

MORE COSTLINESS AT LAUNCESTON'S POOL

 Aquatic centre break-ins costly 
By JAMES BRADY Local government reporter Oct. 25, 2015,

RISKY dips at Launceston Aquatic have cost city ratepayers up to $25,000 a year in after-hours security monitoring fees.

The Launceston City Council-owned facility has been the subject of "ongoing" break-ins, which have potentially fatal implications for trespassing swimmers.

Security found signs of nine break-ins at the facility in 2014, and 10 were reported the year before.

The council proposed a $180,000 redevelopment of the Launceston Aquatic centre grounds early this month, which would include a 2.6-metre anti-climbing security fence.

Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski said the council had mooted plans for energy-efficient thermal blankets for the centre, which would pose a significant risk for trespassers if installed.

"People who do trespass are not only risking prosecution, they are risking injury and death," Mr Dobrzynski said...... CLICK HERE TO READ THIS STORY  READ THE COMMENTS

THE EXAMINER'S COMMENTS SAY A BIT .... 21st Century Cynic Simple solution... go to the RSPCA, adopt four of the right breed of dogs,and let them roam the grounds at night... Mac Even the local council doesn't want to discuss on-water matters? ...  Richard If anyone is prosecuted it will be a public hearing at a court hopefully and their names will be on public record. One thing I have to question is how can any Launceston Ratepayer who technically owns the pool be charged with trespassing?.After all the Council does not own any property, all council assets belong to the ratepayers, the councillors are only an elected body entrusted to look after and maintain ratepayers assets, ensure the rubbish is taken care of, footpaths are in good condition and the street lights work. .. Sure thing ...The 180K fence would not stop all break ins, and draining the pools overnight would be the only way to safeguard against accidental drowning – but than you would introduce other safety issues for those falling or diving into an empty pool. It is a weird world where the LCCC has to look after those who break into the pool. In any case surely you would still need after hours security monitoring - I cannot imagine a facility this size not having one - so what is the actual return on investment of the 180K fence. My wild guess would be a pig pile of fat zero! But if the LCC gets to spend 180K on this shmancy fence than they can find something else to spend this much on next year and get to keep on increasing their budged forever and ever and ever... hence the idea of the shmancy fence I guess! CLICK HERE TO READ THE COMMENTS 

Kids locked out of 'their' facility

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

A NEW $200,000 skate park lies unused on George Town’s Regent Square – surrounded by a tall metal fence.

It has taken five years for a group of George Town youths to lobby, plan and raise funds to build their dream, with the help of the town’s Wattle Group, yet they are unable to use it.

The George Town Council has blockaded the site, for which it is responsible, due to safety concerns and ongoing queries about its completion status.

The development has become a sore point for members of the community, after Wattle Group announced a grand opening that was not able to eventuate.

Renowned Tasmanian skate park designer Simon Williams, of Concrete Dreams, gave the park his tick of approval via email correspondence this week.... CLICK HERE TO READ MORE http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3436495/dispute-leaves-skate-park-closed/

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a debacle that's been brewing for quite a while and "planning" doesn't seem to be anything anyone, well some, have invested all that much in. For a community the size of George Town $200K is a substantial investment, a community investment, Clearly we need to this sort of thing better with Local Govt. being more consultative and more engaged with the communities involved and visa versa.

From Concrete Dreams FACEbook

The 'us & them' factor needs to be turned on its head with the 'us' being as near a possible to 'them' ... we can dream while we look for better ways! This might be a role for 'governance and management' working with the constituency in order to dissolve the constructed barriers.

Tandra Vale

CITIZENS JURIES – Leadership for a new democracy

REPOSTED

http://democracy21tasmaina.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/citizens-juries-leadership-for-democracy.html

Tuesday 9 June 2015 8:05PM 

CLINK HERE TO MAKE THE LINK

 How would you like to actively participate shaping government policies, not just indirectly through your vote? Citizen juries allow just that. State and local governments have started to use citizen juries to address issues like infrastructure, budgeting or reforming the electoral system. These participatory democracy projects could radically alter the way all tiers of Australian governments make decisions. For the better … or worse?

Citizen juries - leadership for a new democracy ... State and local governments have started to use citizen juries to address issues like infrastructure, budgeting or reforming the electoral system.

Forget democracy, we need a new way to govern

REPOSTED FROM

 http://democracy21tasmaina.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/forget-democracy-we-need-new-way-to.html

Forget democracy, we need a new way to govern 

Date April 23, 2014 Luca Belgiorno-Nettis SMH  

"Ten years ago, in 2004, I [Luca Belgion-Nettis] decided to jump off the merry-go-round of political party fund-raisers. I found both the rubber chicken and the political offering equally unappetising. My Liberal and Labor party hosts, on the other hand, seemed perfectly articulate and competent. 

Yet for me, they came across as salesmen more than statesmen. When I asked once whether there might be a better game plan, my host’s retort was Winston Churchill’s: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." 

Churchill damns with a challenge: “that have been tried”. It’s probably true that, in the modern era, other forms of government have failed, but I asked myself, why stop there? If the actual work of politicians is to negotiate our differences and facilitate consensus, then I think, today, they are failing us miserably. 

But it's not their fault. They’re not "bad people" – they are simply responding intelligently [as does the voter] to an adversarial political framework that discourages dialogue and consensus. 

The main engine of our political framework is the election contest; fund-raising is just a necessary subset. The core problem, in my view, is not fund-raising. For as long as there are elections, campaigns will need to be funded, with private and/or public money. The discussions and legislation constraining fund-raising and influence peddling are crucial within the current framework; but why are we not addressing the adversarial core? " 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/forget-democracy-we-need-a-new-way-to-govern-20140422-zqxuv.html

FROM CANADA: Citizen Juries, Independence and Democracy

Let citizen juries bring independence and democracy to the CBC 
By Simon Threlkeld in Opinion, Politics | October 14th 2015 ....  "The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is vital to Canadian culture, democracy and freedom. It should be brought fully out from under the thumb of the prime minister and his or her party.

Although polls show most Canadians oppose funding cuts to the CBC, Stephen Harper has cut the CBC’s annual budget by $115 million since 2012. The CBC has announced it must sell its buildings across Canada to raise money. If Harper is re-elected, it will be a disaster for the CBC.

We need the CBC to hold the powerful to account, including the prime minister and his or her party, exposing falsehood, demagoguery, incompetence and the abuse of power. It is undemocratic, and even ludicrous, for the very politicians the CBC is supposed to be holding to account to be choosing the CBC’s leadership— and to have the power to cut its funding, or even shut it down and sell it to the private sector. 

A classical fix 

The CBC needs full independence from the prime minister, politicians and political parties, as well as from other powerful interests. The CBC’s board and president have always been chosen by the prime minister, overwhelmingly on a patronage basis for those who have assisted the sitting government. Stephen Harper has, unsurprisingly, stacked these offices with Conservative appointments. 

The only way to end the patronage problem at the CBC is for the prime minister and politicians to be removed from the selection process. 

Classical Athens sheds light on how this can be done in a highly democratic way"..... Click here to read more

DEMOCRATIC NETWORKS FOR A MORE INCLUSIVE FUTURE

DEMOCRACY21TASMANIAtakes its lead from the newDEMOCRACY Foundation  and initially D21Tis looking at Local Government in Tasmania. Currently in Tasmania interest is growing in how local governance in particular can be delivered and deliver better outcomes. 

England's Magna Carta is a touchstone for democracy. It devolved power from an absolute monarch to the subjects of the realm. It's an model treaty stuck between a monarch and his subjects and in all its parts it has become a measure for the ways the realm and the government of the day is governed. 

This year, on the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta and its time for complementary measures to reflect the aspirations of constituencies and democratic thinkers in a 21st Century context. 

The newDEMOCRACY Foundation thinks that its time to explore the concept of a complementary 'house' of randomly selected people - A Citizens' Senate. In Tasmania a totally reimagined mode of 'Local Govt',  an ancillary component of 'council', needs to be trialled in order to deliver a more credible, more accountable, and more inclusive, level of governance for the State. 

The thinking might be wrong but that’s why a fair method for studying such innovations, alongside any others, needs to be put  to a Community Forum in some form and let the 'Forum' spend some months deliberating the measures that might be put in place. 

The newDEMOCRACY Foundation uses the Irish Constitutional Convention of 2013 as a precedent for moving the discourse forward. 

The Irish had a mix of everyday people selected by lot (as in a jury) together with politicians - two thirds/one third. 

In Tasmania, a similar mix could be assembled to consider: ‘How can we govern ourselves better at a local level?’ and report back to Parliament. 

In order to be inclusive submissions should come from all and sundry on how to improve local government in Tasmania. 

Taking the cue from the newDEMOCRACY Foundation, "democracy is more than ‘the vote’; it’s a way of organising ourselves, for no other reason than for ourselves."

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE SITE

Social Media & Local Government

Gradually Social Media is kicking in as an 'accountability tool' in the arena of Local Govt. For so so long the players claimed that it "not to do with us”.... and.... "we have been elected/appointed to make decisions".... "so how can it have anything to do with us??"... and for a time there they were kind of right. 

The 'paper press' has for a very long time been collaboration between the 'aldermanic class', editors and a couple of 'pet journos'. Council's are require by law to openly advertise the opportunities they have to offer. Unsurprisingly this interdependent and symbiotic relationship, or sets of relationships, until recently was something that could be characterised as one where 'mutual milking' was going on and in the most part to some degree cosily.

However the ground has shifted, and significantly, and it continues to do so day by day. 

Newspapers are currently struggling for relevance with alternative online publications challenging the ‘established press’ and its assumed supremacy. Many, indeed most, are joining the digital fray in open competition with citizen journalism and social media, and as often as not, embracing new technologies and social media.

A demonstration of this in part has been the recent situation in Federal politics where Bronwyn Bishop's "Choppergate Affair" proved to be her undoing and in very large part this was the doing of Social Media Marketing.

Interestingly, niche publications and BLOGS can reach niche audiences, and in very quick time, and more to the point, very affordably. The landscape has changed more than most players in local government can, or have demonstrated that they can, comprehend.

Most, well many at leat, are of the age where digital technology, and the cultural paradigm it facilitates, has left them behind. They may have ‘smart phones’ but their thinking remains in the past, well in yesterday land in any event. Many use their smart phones so badly they should consider throwing them off a cliff somewhere.

How do the local government operatives deal with all this? Well they typically enlist compliant underlings to try and fill the gap but continue to use yesterday thinking to provide the content. 

Noticeably in Tasmania Hobart and Launceston’s council are getting into ‘Facebook’ in their struggle for relevance and in response to the criticism they face via social media.

Sadly the enlisted and compliant help and underlings cannot  fill the gap. They do not have the authority to provide content.  But the overlords continue to use yesterday thinking to provide decreasingly relevant content. 

Noticeably in Tasmania Hobart and Launceston’s council are getting into Facebook in their struggle for relevance and in response to the criticism they face via social media.

However, unwelcome critiques via social media have been sneaking up on local government for quite a while. There are a myriad of examples but a very early one is this very detailed website http://launcestoncityscandal.com/dobrzynski.html that lingers on keeping one version of things out there to be googled. 

Interestingly in the old day of the 'paper press' yesterday's news faded over time but social media is a lot like Berger Paint .... It keeps on keeping on .... AND its been doing so for a very very long time!

As they say "watch this space"!

It appears that Launceston is working quite hard on cultural irrelevance

Tom Ellison's contribution via FACEBOOK to The Examiner's online comments...

"Just like clockwork, The Examiner wheels out the ‘it’s an eyesore and must be demolished’ editorial.

Just like clockwork, the uniformed masses respond, demanding Launceston be supplied with (in no particular order) a Big W, a JB HiFI and an Aldi.

Only that way, it seems, can Launceston shrug off its reputation as a regional backwater, and start dragging tourists away from Hobart.

And just like clockwork, the Launceston City Council stands mute; refusing to correct the local newspaper on matters of fact.

So here are some facts:

#1 The owner of the CH Smith site, Brile Pty Ltd, a 2-person private company, has consistently failed to honour its promises to develop the site.

#2 Brile Pty Ltd has consistently refused to make any attempts to preserve the historic assets under its stewardship

#3 Brile Pty Ltd has neither the funds, nor the financial backing to develop its proposed shopping centre

Hobart has a Big W and a JB Hi Fi. A couple of each in fact. No Aldi as yet, but hey, that hasn’t stopped tourists visiting the capital in record numbers.

I wonder whether that’s because of other factors? Like the private sector (yes, I’m talking about you Mr Walsh) creating cultural experiences that people actually seek.

Or people hoping to explore what Australia's built heritage looked like before the McDonalds era.

The CH Smith site is not a crumbling eyesore, as Zona Black labels it.

It’s one of Launceston’s earliest remaining reminders of an industrial past. Yes, it’s a relic. An important one. I challenge The Examiner to find earlier, or intact examples of Regency warehouses more important than those standing neglected and unloved in Charles Street.

Ms Black writes: “would anybody truly care if we woke up tomorrow, and both these crumbling sites were gone?”

Perhaps one day, when she’s had her fill of shopping at Big W and Aldi, she might look back and regret that statement."

|||||||||||

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is but one of Launceston's weeping sores that all so often points to serial failures in planning and local government decision making. The myth that tourists come to Launceston to shop in national and multi national department stores is stupid. 

Also, the idea that Launceston residents continue to behave like their parents and grandparents gets way too much credibility. 

All this is specially so in Launceston's council chamber or rather the managerial backrooms well away from the public glare.

We are told that its in "the GM's office is where the rubber hits the road" but if that's the truth it seems that there is a lot of skidding and screeching going on with not too much moving forward to be seen. 

Launceston could be a tourist destination but despite Launceston's assets 'the council' seems to be totally clueless as to what they are and what they are actually worth. 

The chances are that if the C H Smith building, and the adjoining cordial factory building, were to spontaneously combust someone in the town hall building would "chuck a party".

Tom Ellison intimates that what brings tourist to urban Tasmania is the 'culture factor'. In fact that is the very thing that is being missed time and time again. Thank you Tom for putting in your two bob's worth on FACEBOOK!

Tanda Vale

Smoke & Mirrors at Launceston Acquatic Again

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

Pictured here: Alison Baker, of Anytime Fitness, Max Pearce, of Pycsam Health & Fitness, Michelle Manz, of My Gym, Eve Bolzonello, of Curves, Brian Finch, of KFM Fitness Studio, and Rod Ascui, of Health and Fitness World Launceston. Picture: PAUL SCAMBLER The Examiner

"GYM owners say the City of Launceston has lost financial control over the aquatic centre and have re-lodged their submission to the Tasmanian Economic Regulator to take action over unfair practices. 

A group of 14 gym owners says the council should not continue to throw ratepayers' money at the centre through the LAfit gym, while its deficit has almost doubled in just over one year - rising from $1.6 million to $2.96 million and when three gyms have closed down. 

Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski refuted the figures, saying the overall deficit had actually declined from $1.6 million to $1.3 million.... Click here to read more"

As before, the smoke and mirrors are on show and in evidence yet again in and around Launceston Aquatic, and its very concerning. On such things TAS RATEPAYERS raised its concerns not so long ago ... CLICK HERE.

A series of questions arise in regard to the City of Launceston's accountability and its so-called non-core operations. Given that Launceston's Aldermen are funded to represent ratepayers, with this as a background, can Aldermen address the questions below?

• What are the city's Aldermen doing to ensure that the city's management is operating within not only the statutory requirements of the Tasmanian government's laws and regulations but also the spirit of these laws and regulations for the benefit of ratepayers?

• To what end does the City of Launceston Council's management continues to produce ambiguous and confusing financial reports that appear to be self serving?

• Why do Aldermen apparently believe that "operation matters" are beyond their scrutiny, and their policy initiatives, even when ratepayers, on the evidence, are being seriously disadvantaged?

• Why is it that the City of Launceston's so called "Audit Committee" allows confusing ambiguous fiscal reporting to persist and moreover for ratepayers' access to such reporting to be constrained?

• Can the Aldermen satisfy themselves, and consequentially Launceston ratepayers, that the city's non core operations are functioning in a cost effective way? And if not why not?

While such questions go unanswered the City of Launceston's Aldermen appear to less and less accountable as time passes and more so as they appear to be so reluctant to act.