Saturday, December 17, 2016

Council meetings held in secret to hide 'embarrassing' councillors


EDITORS’ NOTE: If this story  resonates in Tasmania with councils behaving badly in almost every possible way it should be no surprise. The Minister could well give Tasmanian ratepayers a Christmas cum New Year present and ask both the Ombudsman and the Integrity Commission to bring down a joint report on Tasmania’s councils.

That report should be focused upon the issue of accountability and be equally focused upon the elected representatives and councils operations. Anyway this story in THE AGE makes for sobering reading!

The big questions hanging in the air is just how accountable are Tasmania’s Councils and indeed how representational? The AUDITOR GENERAL might well have a role to play in answering these question in regard to some of Tasmania’s “troublesome councils.”

–•–
Council meetings held in secret to hide 'embarrassing' councillors


Council meetings are being held in secret in order to hide the "embarrassing" behavior of councillors, a detailed investigation into local government transparency has revealed.

A 184-page report by Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass found many failings by the state's councils to serve the public interest when making decisions to close meetings.

The investigation recommended that all council meetings be recorded, mandatory councillor training be introduced and that several changes be made to the Local Government Act to force councils to be more transparent.

"Overall, we found that councils were not engaging in widespread, deliberate, secretive behaviour. But there was evidence of poor practice across councils large and small, urban and rural," Ms Glass said.

One of the many concerns raised in the investigation was that councils were inappropriately closing meetings to the public to avoid embarrassment or reputation damage to the council itself.

In June this year, Frankston City Council convened a meeting to discuss comments made by councillors on social media. The mayor and councillors later told the ombudsman the meeting was closed to the public because they believed it would cause negative media attention.


"You have to ask yourself, in the public interest, what does this serve?" one councillor said.

"If it's going to be a bloody, messy procedure, if it's going to be surgery and there is going to be a bit of blood all over the joint, why do you invite everyone in to see that and witness it?"

The council later conceded the decision to close the meeting was "not in full compliance" with local government law.

Ms Glass said that closing a council meeting to avoid embarrassment put the interests of council ahead of the interests of the community.

"Ultimately, the public has a right to see how councils are operating and making decisions," she said.

"Where the source of embarrassment is councillor behaviour, voters have a legitimate interest in seeing these behaviours and their impact on council business, to inform their decision making at the next election."

Only 16 of Victoria's 79 councils make audio or video recordings of their meetings readily available to the public.

One of the justifications for this is that councillors could make defamatory comments during the meetings, exposing the council to legal action.

For example, Cardinia Shire Council in Melbourne's south east used to webcast its meetings but stopped because it did not have defamation insurance (it now releases audio of council meetings via a podcast).

The Local Government Act requires that councils record the reason for closing a meeting to the public in the minutes of the meeting, however few council provide detailed explanations.

Melbourne City Council will hold five of its 11 items in its upcoming December meeting in secret. One of the reasons listed on the agenda for the confidentiality requirement is "other confidential matter".

As part of its nine-month investigation, the ombudsman also received reports that councillors had voted on items that they had a personal interest in, or had bullied those who disagreed with their views.

Ms Glass recommended that a mandatory training program be developed for all Victorian councillors, despite some chief executives questioning if it would make any difference to councillors' grasp of the requirements of their role.

"We deliver them whatever training they need. But … training doesn't turn them into decent human beings that care about their community," one chief executive said.

Other recommendations from the ombudsman include a "public interest test" requirement for closing meetings and the development of a code of conduct for all Victorian councillors.

Local Government Minister Natalie Hutchins said the Victorian government was considering the recommended changes to the Local Government Act "but can already indicate that we are supportive of many of them".

"I also call on our 79 councils to look at how they can take the recommendations into account now," she said.”

Click here to go to source http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/council-meetings-held-in-secret-to-hide-embarrassing-councillors-20161215-gtbxma.html



Friday, December 16, 2016

Water at centre of looming Local Govt crisis

Either Tasmania has local councils responsible for local areas or not. The State government needs to make up its mind and act and so do local councils ‘water’ is the kind of problem that will not go away.

Currently this is all about more taxpayer/ratepayer money going to highly paid bureaucrats, not to mention subsidising  inefficient and incompetent councils and in the end maintaining the status quo in the self interest of the leaners and the lift-avoiders – we all know who they are.

In the meantime aldermen/councillors sit around arguing about important things like new city logos or the wording of the Annual Report

We need to ask: if ‘water services’ are to be provided on a Statewide basis and its not an offering for a specific local geographic area, when will the State Government start a realistic  conversation about 21st C service with local government?

Pontificating and tell communities such conversations are over the horizon, after the next State election, or something else, is just not good enough. When small councils lose the financial support of TasWater’s dividends, local services will surely suffer. It does not need to be like that.

This is not jus an amalgamation issue or even one to do with getting rid of local government even either will deliver the kind of benefits. It is a conversation abot how best to deliver and at what level to deliver services to the diversity of Tasmania’s communities, especially those not in large urban centres.


TasWater's $2.4 billion in needed upgrades could see corporation sidelined, economist says
ABC_  Georgie Burgess <http://www.abc.net.au/news/georgie-burgess/7880586>

The mission to upgrade Tasmania's aging water and sewerage systems could see responsibility for the services taken out of TasWater's hands, according to a leading economist.

Two-thirds of the state's sewage treatment plants do not meet environmental licence conditions and numerous towns are still subject to boil water alerts or "do not consume" notices.

A plan to rationalise the number of sewage treatment plants, provide safe drinking water to all serviced towns and upgrade the state's drinking water system would cost $2.4 billion.

But TasWater's inability to cover the cost has been laid bare in a report by the auditor-general, according to Labor and the Greens. The council-owned body made an underlying profit of $11 million for the year to July 2016 — down $14 million on the previous year.

Over the same period, TasWater increased borrowings by $64 million to $430 million. Read more here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-15/taswater-struggling-to-find-enough-to-cover-upgrades/8123294?WT.ac=statenews_tas




Friday, November 18, 2016

Crowdfunding Alert: Heritage Fund



For More Information eMail LauncestonProjects@bigpond.com



WATCH THIS SPACE

 BTW:  Thanks to the reader who emailed me insisting that "suppoting" really needs an 'r' ... you're right and we've put it back after it got back from, and got over, being WRONG! ... However we do appreciate your money THANX!!

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Council Called On To Stamp Out Bullying

A council has been called on to denounce bullying after the city’s highest ranking public servant scared passengers with an allegedly aggressive outburst at an airport on Tuesday.

The council’s general manager reportedly stood over an ex-councillor and berated him for publicly criticising council’s handling of its relationship with air line.

A health professional has described witnessing a “scary”, “aggressive” and “volatile” incident while waiting for her flight.

"There were actually two incidents - one in the security line prior to screening and one in the lounge; it was scary,” she said.

“I didn't realise it was the council general manager; on the spot I made a complaint to security because I was scared.

“I couldn't believe it was occurring in a public place, let alone an airport, where security is valued above all else.”

The ex-councillor’s  calmness took the sting out of the altercation, which could otherwise have become “very dangerous”.

“When I got in the lounge, one of my colleagues said to me 'Oh my god, he's at it again',” she said said.

"he had distanced himself from the general manager, but the general manager was at him again.

"The language and behaviour was inconsistent with what you'd expect from someone in the highest office of local government.
"Council really has to show leadership on this."

It was claimed that the general manager had condemned the ex-councillor for speaking to the media in the past, but never so publicly.

“As I was waiting in line to be security checked, the general manager approached me and called me a germ and a liar,” ex-councillor said.

“Local government is not above scrutiny and accordingly should expect, even demand to be questioned.

“Anecdotal evidence that I have obtained suggests there is a culture of bullying and intimidation at the council.

“I call on the councillors to establish a confidential and independent service so that reports of council bullying can be reported without fear of retribution.”

The Mayor  has taken ownership of the scandal, launching an “inquiry into conflicting reports about an incident that occurred at the airport”.

“The [council] does not tolerate bullying or harrassment and has clear policies, procedures and training in place to ensure this does not occur,” the mayor said said.


EDITOR’S NOTE: This report has been edited to protect the 
identities involved and to focus attention upon the issue and event!

Click here to go to source – http://www.dailyadvertiser.com.au/story/4296649/council-gm-in-bully-probe/

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Come and be involved in the new Community Association. – Update on "Implement the Major Recommendations of the Huon Valley Board of Inquiry"

Petition update

Patricia Kyne just posted an update on the petition you signed, Implement the Major Recommendations of the Huon Valley Board of Inquiry.

Come and be involved in the new Community Association.

Nov 08, 2016 —

Huon Valley Residents and Ratepayers Association - Inc
will hold a Public Meeting in the Huonville Town Hall at 7 pm,
on Tuesday 15th November, 2016.
Information regarding the meeting is below:

The next 12 months is vital for the future of the Huon Valley.
We invite you to come along to this public meeting to share your concerns and positive ideas to help ensure that the Huon Valley has a...

Read more
Share this update with friends
Share Tweet

Monday, October 31, 2016

COUNCIL APOLOGISES FOR ITS RATEPAYER SURVEY


FROM THE UK:A Suffolk council has apologised after 80 residents received a voter registration letter which asks them to log on to a pornographic website.

Mid Suffolk District Council issued the letter to residents in the Claydon and Barham wards asking them to confirm who lives at their address to check who is eligible to register to vote.

However, the website given for residents to respond actually directs them to a porn site.

Mike Evans, strategic director for Mid Suffolk and Babergh District Councils, has apologised for the ‘embarrassing mistake’.

He said the letter was a second reminder to chase up residents who hadn’t responded to an initial communication on registering to vote.

He said the inclusion of the x-rated web address was a ‘technical slip’.

Mr Evans added: “Sending out this web address was absolutely not our intent and we apologise unreservedly to anyone who received it.

“It is unfortunate that the mail merged form produced for Mid Suffolk from the anonymous data on our system has led to this unacceptable mistake. It should not have happened and we are putting it right.”

A letter of apology will be hand delivered to all those affected later today or over the weekend.” .... [LINK ... http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/mid-suffolk-district-council-apologises-after-issuing-letter-directing-residents-to-porn-website-1-7650832]

EDITOR’S NOTE: It is understood that this kind of thing happens in Tasmania quite regularly and specifically in Launceston given that city’s commitment to, and apparent addiction to, marketing via social media despite claims to the contrary. However, no apologies have yet been sent to any residents or ratepayers.


Saturday, October 29, 2016

Citizen Juries Are Working Right Now

The newDEMOCRACY Foundation Day three of the Nuclear Citizens' Jury in Adelaide. Jurors hearing from 32 witnesses that they chose. This YOUtube video provides an insight into how Citizen’s Juries work and are working [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5-KegQKmSE

If you want to know more about what citizens' juries are and how they work? Why not listen to nDF Board member, Professor Carson, being interviewed on Real Democracy Now! a podcast (episode 1.1). This podcast is hosted by one of the newDEMOCRACY Foundation’s very own volunteers and is available through iTunes [LINK] https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/real-democracy-now!-a-podcast/id1164312350?mt=2]


Wednesday, October 26, 2016

CONSULTANTS REPORT: Local Govt. Tas

As complex systems and organisational consultants, we'd like to add a little information that may help to resolve the dysfunctions that communities in Tasmania have and are experiencing with their Councils. 

Apart from the specifics of the case (e.g. personalities, local hot issues, power groups etc) there are generic issues created by weaknesses in the Local Government Act (LGA), that play out in Councils because there are too few protections for communities and their members built into the Act (e.g. Glenorchy) - indeed all the protections appear to be for the Councils themselves rather than those paying for them

We'll be brief and also make the offer to discuss any of this with you either by email (although that's slow), phone or in-person at a mutually convenient time. 

People have weaknesses and it is incumbent upon governments to try to legislate and regulate in ways that help overcome or avoid those weaknesses (e.g fraud protection, anti-corruption measures). .

We believe that the Tasmanian LGA is vague in its specification of Council's purpose and activities, and thus enables Councils to take on all kinds of activities and do "whatever is convenient" to carry out those activities. That loose definition is not offset by any practical means for community members to get redress or otherwise prevent Councils from acting in ways that damage, alienate or disadvantage the community or its members (e.g. Launceston Council operates businesses like gymnasia that compete directly with its own ratepayers). 

In the current situation then, the Act serves to protect the Council but offers no real redress to the community (discounting the weak 'code of conduct' actions that community members are charged for and that are carried out by the Council's own representative group the LGAT). .

We suggest that unless structural matters such as these are addressed, a counci such as Huon Valley Couuncil runs the real risk of lapsing into more of the same after any period of administration. 

We offer this purely in an attempt to help in case these issues have not yet been raised.

ABA Consulting (Tas)

UPDATE: The Huon Valley Resdients and Ratepayers Association (Inc)

Patricia Kyne Australia 
OCT 25, 2016 — The Huon Valley Residents and Ratepayers Association (Inc) 

When the recently appointed Commissioner completes her term in office we do not want to find ourselves in the same situation as previously.

To help avoid this HVRRA will focus on:
Community Consultation Ensuring the Commissioner’s role is fully explained to the community and that she implements and adopts an appropriate communications strategy. Ensuring that HVC acts in full accordance with its 2013 “Community Consultation Framework” ,

• Accountability Ensuring all the Board of Inquiry recommendations that remain relevant are comprehensively assessed and, where appropriate, implemented. ,

• Transparency The full release of the HVC commissioned ‘Page Seager Report’.

• Advocacy With no elected councillors to act on our behalf HVRRA will advocate on behalf of individuals or community groups when appropriate.,

If you support these aims and consider them important, please come along to our next meeting: 7pm, Monday, 31st October in the Cygnet Town Hall Supper Room 
• If you can’t make it to the meeting, but would like to support HVRRA, a membership application form can be obtained by contacting us at the email address below.
• You can also join HVRRA at the meeting. All members have voting rights and 5 new committee members will be elected on the night

For further information call: 6295 0887 or email: hvrra@iinet.net.au
 President Patrick Synge
Vice President Sylvia Merope
Secretary Linda Poulton
Treasurer David de Burgh

Implement the Major Recommendations of the Huon Valley Board of Inquiry

THE PETITION

"Minister, in June 2016 you decided to give directives which generally accorded with the secondary recommendations of the Board of Inquiry Report into the Huon Valley Council.

With respect Minister, the Huon Valley Council is unable to comply with those directives because it continues to be completely dysfunctional as a result of the unworkable relationship between the Mayor, the General Manager and certain other Councillors. 

The residents of the Huon Valley Council are completely disheartened by the ongoing infighting in Council and are becoming completely disengaged with our Council. Council is no longer capable of serving its community. 

We believe that the implementation of the primary recommendations in the Huon Valley Council Board of Inquiry is the only way to achieve greater accountability and transparency in our Council. 

We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Hon Peter Gutwein MP, Minister for Planning and Local Government to immediately implement 
Recommendation 1 and Recommendation 2 of the Huon Valley Council Board of Inquiry Report which are. 

R1: Pursuant to section 226(1)(b) of the Act, the Minister is to recommend that the Governor by order dismiss the councillors and appoint a Commissioner under section 231 of the Act to perform the functions of the Council. 

 R2: A new election is not called for a minimum period of 12 months." 

The petition was an online petition and petitioners were asked to submit their postcode with your signature so that the Minister could be made made aware of the degree of municipal support this petition has received. "

To \view the Board of inquiry Report CLICK HERE 

NOTE: This petition was delivered to: Minister for Planning and Local Government Hon. Peter Gutwein MP  Patricia Kyne started this petition with a single signature, and the outcome is history. 

Start a petition today to change something you care about. CLICK HERE

When nobody is listening, or wants to listen, change.org offers a way forward

To see the progress of the Huon Council petition CLICK HERE

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Local Government – Why not have an open inquiry?

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE
Surely there is a better way than this dragged out, nock'em down (maybe?), costly word fight with the Minister, councils and aldermen etc. etc. 

Indeed, what is the Liberal government's agenda in regard to the interference in local councils? Is it as simple political distrust of council decision making or is there more to it? 

The Mercury tells us that Glenorchy's aldermen are "expected to receive a draft board of inquiry report by next month, more than a year after the process began. ... Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein announced the board of inquiry a year ago last week, because of what he described as divisions in the council affecting governance [not to mention ratepayers] ... Mr Gutwein said the draft report would be provided to involved parties by the end of November."

The Mercury reports that "Mr Gutwein said, after receiving the draft report, he would follow the “appropriate processes” to ensure procedural fairness for all parties.... The board has been made up of former West Tamar mayor Barry Easther and former Flinders Island mayor Lynn Mason. ... CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE MERCURY STORY

By all accounts this board is beavering away but getting nowhere fast on the evidence. Mr Easther says “There’s a lot of work to be done ... [and work has been] ...  "delayed earlier this year after Alderman Jenny Branch-Allen brought a Supreme Court case, claiming the board had treated her unfairly." 

Chief Justice Alan Blow found in favour of some of Ald Branch-Allen’s claims in June and he ordered that Ald Branch-Allen be presented with any findings against her and be given an opportunity to respond. 

Interestingly the board of inquiry’s terms of reference include investigating compliance with the Local Government Act 1993 by Mayor Kristie Johnston, aldermen and general manager Peter Brooks. 

Apparently the board is examining governance structures and processes adopted by council since the October 2014 local government elections – and well might they!

Ratepayers throughout Tasmania will have noted that a board of inquiry report into the Huon Valley Council recommended the dismissal of all nine councillors when it was released in June

However, Mr Gutwein let everyone off the hook an gave Huon Valley six months to comply with seven ministerial directions – but in the end he has dismissed the council anyway.

George Burrows, a Glenorchy ratepayer has offered up an "alternative for the government to consider and hopefully act upon Local Council has been inept at the best and possibly corrupt at the worst "

Mr. Burrows says"Create a State Government department, it could be structured like the Health and Education Departments, with managers at various levels and salaries depending on the size of the operation. Thus greater Hobart would have a director, Launceston and maybe some lesser positions for other previous council areas."
  
He goes on to say "this would take one expensive tier of government out of the system and save considerably on salaries and allowances for Mayors and Aldermen as well as the many very expensive city managers"  

Its little wonder that this idea has not and is is unlikely to get too much support from the operational wing of local government. Indeed it's speculated that there is a billion dollars to be save by eliminating most of Tasmania's councils.

Mr. Burrows also says "to make sure good representation for citizens continues the money saved is used to increase the Tasmanian Lower House back to the previous numbers."

He also says this would allow"amalgamation, long over due, cutting out an inefficient and costly tier of government and bringing back to the Lower House more elected members, giving citizens a greater choice of candidates, a greater gene pool for ministerial appointments and enough backbenchers a to work with the the problems of citizens in their respective electorates."

Whatever, it is untenable that the status quo might prevail in any sense. Clearly the Local Govt Act is well past its use-by-date and that too many people have too much to loose if any level of change is initiated. Therefore, it is very clear that there is a need to break the impasse here given all that goes before the point we are at.

What to do?  Hold an open public inquiry – judicial inquiry, citizens assembly/jury, whatever – that is held out in the open, with public submissions, open hearings, witnesses being called etc. Such an inquiry would surely encourage the exploration of ideas that currently being suppressed for whatever reason.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Lindsay Street Carpark Off The Agenda


Launceston Council's Lindsay Street Carpark proposal is now off the agenda.  

Whilst the council has not provided a reason for 'the withdrawal' of a proposal that was masquerading as an ANCILLARY USE because car parking is PROHIBITED under the planning scheme on the Lindsay St site.

Now why is it that the community knows such things and the council functionaries all the way up and down the line seem not to?

Speculatively, the Lindsay St car park might have actually been devised with the intended use being to  supplement the car parking that would (might?) be displaced by UTas on the Inveresk site.

In fact, this project provides insights into the council's processes and more importantly it poses so many questions. In fact, what might have happened if the community wasn't alert to the problems and issues and less than three representors put their hands up?

The advice that the application has been withdrawn from the aldermanic assessment process and that it will no longer be referred to the Council meeting for determination is loaded with questions. A question that comes to mind very quickly is the cost of the process to date. In fact what are those costs? How can they be discovered if none of the aldermen pursue the matter? Who within council was advocating this solution to an unidentified 'problem'? Who bears the responsibility if not the cost?

Its easy to deduce that it'll be the hapless ratepayers who'll foot the bill however much it turns out to be. However, is there any imperative within council to discover such expenditure in order to establish fiscal discipline within the council's operational wing? A ratepayer, or even an alderman by all accounts, asking such a question is very likely to have Section 62 (2) of the Local Govt. Act recited to them. Is this how such inappropriate expenditure gets to be explained away?

The kind of expertise asserted throughout such planning processes is covered by Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993. It  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, and the General Manager is required to certify that it is so. Even if late in the day it seems that the General Manager discovered himself unable to certify any such thing for this process.

With this information in hand, and knowing that an expert judgement needed to be made, a whole bunch of questions arise that deserve to be answered. Before a site meeting could be held on October 13 at 1pm at Lindsay Street why hadn't the proposal's legitimacy been tested? Why hadn't either the 
outside consultant assessment planner or the in-house applicant, the officer responsible for  Commercial Project Delivery, thoroughly investigated this proposal?

Then there are some rather uncomfortable questions beyond those above. The big one being what are the aldermen actually doing to fulfil their representational role and save the costs that accumulate and get to be passed on to ratepayers with an smothered "oopps" and not even a hint of a "sorry"?


L McKenzie

Sunday, October 16, 2016

SO the exHuon Mayor wants an inquiry ... WHY WOULDN'T HE?

CLICK TO GO TO THIS STORY
ALEXANDRA HUMPHRIES, The Mercury, October 13, tells us that "FORMER Huon Valley mayor Peter Coad has called for a parliamentary or judicial inquiry into the “campaign” to have him removed as mayor... The statement comes after the council’s response to a draft board of inquiry report was leaked to the Mercury, indicating that the council asked Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein to call for Mr Coad to resign as mayor.... MORE: HUON VALLEY COUNCIL WANTED COAD GONE, SAYS REPORT CLICK HERE

Well he might say that but why stop at that? It is abundantly clear that Local Govt in Tasmania, and it might be argued Australia too, is broken ... seriously broken. In Tasmania, with an Act framed in 1993 [LINK] its not at all surprising that it be imagined that 'things' have moved on – or should have.

The HUON DEBACLE is but one bit of the nonsense being played out under the banner of "Local Governance" in Tasmania. Anyone paying any attention at all will know that Glenorchy, Glamorgan-Spring Bay Councils, Launceston even, are failing to deliver on the Local Govt. promise and purpose"

  • to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community; 
  • to represent and promote the interests of the community; 
  • to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area.
More to the point, councils are required to perform their functions as a council in consultation with its constituency – plus involve and to be accountable to the community in doing so. Well, day by day that's a promise that's been taken awfully lightly. In fact council's elected representative, all 29 cases in Tasmania, are becoming less relevant.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE
The idea that council's are populated by community representatives and 'public servants' becomes less and less credible by the day as does the Minister's refusal to force amalgamations. In one sense his reluctance is understandable given the political pressure he might well be under  to 'do the amalgamations' this way or that in order to deliver this outcome or that.

Let alone any of that there is an argument being put about that there is a 'billion bucks to be saved' if amalgamation were to go ahead. If it were half that it'd be worth doing!

However there are too many councillors and aldermen on the 'public teat' for them to be demonstrating any enthusiasm at all to be done out of an income that requires little or no effort to receive.

They are only to be outdone by the so-called upper echelon of 'the administration' who are raking in more than the so-called 'representatives' and for about the same level of effort. The question has to be asked, just how many of them could win a position in the private world where productivity and accountability are criteria for maintaining a position? Indeed, how many could manage their own business profitably and deliver value to their customers?

These are rhetorical questions the answers to which are well known but rarely spoken of in 'polite company' – or even the community. Mouthing such things is ever likely to get one 'into a spot of bother' albeit that there may be truth to be found there.

The Local Govt. Act 1993 is without doubt deeply flawed and redundant at best. Its underpinning notion that the constituency can trust a council because it is 'the council' in any other circumstance would be laughable. But why aren't the punter laughing councils out of office? It's because the State Government, rather governments of all complextions over time, have protected 'councils' for reasons beyond comprehension.

There are enough reasons to initiate a judicial inquiry into Tasmania's Local Government 'SYSTEM' as its very clear that it costs way too much to deliver too few services. The Minister is proving himself to be timid and asking the question "why?" poses far too many uncomfortable questions. So be it, what are the answers. It's time that the impasse was broken and that a thorough judicial  inquiry was held.

Item #1 for such an inquiry should be SECTION 65 of the Act closely followed by SECTION 62.

Too much is at stake and Tasmanian capacity to pay more and more for ever diminishing services is shrinking by the day. Not to put too fine a point on it, a  great many 'leaners' need to be replaced by fewer 'lifters'!