ISSUE 1
There is an air of "change" moving across Launceston.
• What components for a fresh approach can you bring to the table that can address the fundamental role of local government without encroaching on the roles of state and federal governments ?
It is clear to me that Launceston and the Council needs a new leadership style that is both collegial and dynamic - one that listens to people but also stimulates ideas and inspires.
We need:
There is an air of "change" moving across Launceston.
• What components for a fresh approach can you bring to the table that can address the fundamental role of local government without encroaching on the roles of state and federal governments ?
It is clear to me that Launceston and the Council needs a new leadership style that is both collegial and dynamic - one that listens to people but also stimulates ideas and inspires.
We need:
-
To be risk aware and not risk averse (look for ways to say yes to things that make a positive
difference to our city)
-
To use the common sense test to everything before acting.
- To be strategic in our outcomes with more action and less talking about it.
-
To understand the value and cost to the ratepayer and make that is central to our decision making.
I have successfully adopted this style of management on several boards and would love the opportunity to lead this great city to a brighter future.
I believe most things come down to people and passion. Consequently, to make anything happen, they need to understand and embrace a shared vision. I call this the Ripple Effect. (The impact of community ideas rippling through to strategies and Council decisions that benefit all Northern Tasmanians). Go to www.hughmckenzie.com.au to find the full text of the Ripple Effect.
Launceston City Council is one of the largest Corporations in Tasmania, so if elected to Council you
will become akin to a
"Director on the Board of that Corporation". Launceston City Council will administer, in 2014/15, an Annual Budget with a combined operating and capital expenditure of $109.8 million (up from $96.2 million last year).
• What commercial or other associated experience do you have that provides you with the skills or understanding of the responsibility of the position of Alderman that you are applying for?
I am a sitting Alderman with the LCC and have listened and learned about how Council works over that period. Prior to joining Council I was a Partner with Chartered Accounting and Advisory firm KPMG for 25 years. I retired as a partner prior to seeking a position on Council as I believed to do the job required of me as an Alderman could not be done with a fulltime occupation. During my time at KPMG apart from running my own business I advised many and on occasions was actively involved in running others (through secondments and my role as a Receiver & Manager) so I believe I possess a high level of financial literacy. In my three years as an Alderman I have represented (and still do) the Council on 9 internal committees or Authorities which is significantly more than any other sitting Alderman. As a result I believe I have an in depth understanding on many aspects of the Council’s operations.
"Director on the Board of that Corporation". Launceston City Council will administer, in 2014/15, an Annual Budget with a combined operating and capital expenditure of $109.8 million (up from $96.2 million last year).
• What commercial or other associated experience do you have that provides you with the skills or understanding of the responsibility of the position of Alderman that you are applying for?
I am a sitting Alderman with the LCC and have listened and learned about how Council works over that period. Prior to joining Council I was a Partner with Chartered Accounting and Advisory firm KPMG for 25 years. I retired as a partner prior to seeking a position on Council as I believed to do the job required of me as an Alderman could not be done with a fulltime occupation. During my time at KPMG apart from running my own business I advised many and on occasions was actively involved in running others (through secondments and my role as a Receiver & Manager) so I believe I possess a high level of financial literacy. In my three years as an Alderman I have represented (and still do) the Council on 9 internal committees or Authorities which is significantly more than any other sitting Alderman. As a result I believe I have an in depth understanding on many aspects of the Council’s operations.
ISSUE 3
Living within our means- Launceston City Council operates a number of Regional Facilities (The 3 big spenders, Aurora Stadium, Launceston Aquatic, Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery, were reported in June to be way over last year's budget).
• What are your views on the sustainability of these facilities which are presently unfairly funded by just the 28,000 ratepayers of Launceston, but benefit the residents of the greater Launceston area, population ≥ 106,000? Is a full user-pays admission fee the answer? or privatisation?
• Is an amalgamation of council areas within the region a solution to this question so that at least those who benefit would contribute to the costs?
This is a question that comes up at every election and it is clear the costs have a significant impact on the ratepayers of Launceston.
There is no doubt that these facilities are used by more than just the ratepayers of Launceston and as such it is easy to prosecute the case that we are unfairly treated.
The facts are that the three facilities mentioned are not commercial enterprises and as such privatisation is not the answer as it is unlikely there would be a commercial purchaser.
I believe when the Inveresk branch of the QVMAG was opened a charge was levied on non-residents. This was ultimately scrapped as it was deemed unviable (i.e. the cost of collection was greater than the receipts) so I suspect this is unlikely to fix the inequity.
If I could focus on each of the facilities mentioned and make comment on each separately:
Living within our means- Launceston City Council operates a number of Regional Facilities (The 3 big spenders, Aurora Stadium, Launceston Aquatic, Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery, were reported in June to be way over last year's budget).
• What are your views on the sustainability of these facilities which are presently unfairly funded by just the 28,000 ratepayers of Launceston, but benefit the residents of the greater Launceston area, population ≥ 106,000? Is a full user-pays admission fee the answer? or privatisation?
• Is an amalgamation of council areas within the region a solution to this question so that at least those who benefit would contribute to the costs?
This is a question that comes up at every election and it is clear the costs have a significant impact on the ratepayers of Launceston.
There is no doubt that these facilities are used by more than just the ratepayers of Launceston and as such it is easy to prosecute the case that we are unfairly treated.
The facts are that the three facilities mentioned are not commercial enterprises and as such privatisation is not the answer as it is unlikely there would be a commercial purchaser.
I believe when the Inveresk branch of the QVMAG was opened a charge was levied on non-residents. This was ultimately scrapped as it was deemed unviable (i.e. the cost of collection was greater than the receipts) so I suspect this is unlikely to fix the inequity.
If I could focus on each of the facilities mentioned and make comment on each separately:
-
Aurora Stadium – The revenue generated to the northern economy from the support of AFL
games in Launceston is estimated to be in excess of $50m pa and this year we had approximately 15,000 interstate visitors to Launceston for the 5 football matches. It is therefore arguable that the benefit to our city’s economy justifies the cost. Having said that it, it is important that we continue to focus on other revenue raising opportunities for the facility and endeavour to increase local content.
-
Launceston Aquatic – Work has been done to turn around the burgeoning costs of the Centre by
introducing the health and fitness centre (which should have occurred at the outset in my opinion)
and improvement in the heating structure and learn to swim campaign. This is a facility that will
never be a profitable and like our parks and gardens is a part of the city landscape and in my view
a valuable asset of the city. Whilst I wasn’t part of the decision making on the building of the
centre, we now have it and need to make it as cost effective as we can.
-
QVMAG – It is interesting that running into an election everyone has a solution that seemingly
wasn’t there before the election!!! I have been studying and discussing the QVMAG for the past
three years. I am of the view that the assets of the QVMAG do not belong to the City of
Launceston, at best we hold them as custodian for the State of Tasmania. As such the annual
$4m+ cost to the Launceston ratepayers is totally unjust. Having said that I can understand why
other Councils do not want to contribute to something that is “proudly owned by Launceston”.
The answer to me is clearly that it should be owned and operated (and funded) by the State
(provided we protect the collection from being pilfered and downgraded) as a Northern or
Regional Museum. There is a need for an overhaul of the operating structure which may see an
independent board of governance appointed to oversee the operations. Currently it is treated as an
expensive cost centre with an inordinate focus on financial performance without a proper focus on
what it could be.
In a general sense I believe the regional facilities provided by Launceston will not be funded directly by other Councils as there typical response is you built them/or they are in your municipality so your problem and that is probably how I would react if I was a Councillor in another municipality. The answer ultimately lies in having the City boundaries more align with the users of the facilities (i.e. amalgamations) and this is something I am pleased that the current Liberal government are starting to address, so hopefully this becomes more than just words. Failing this funding either through the Grants Commission or a more direct funding model to reflect our regional load should continue to be prosecuted. I do note, however, that the latter process has some likeness to the way the original QVMAG funding deal with the State was brokered and over time the funding ratio has significantly
reduced in favour of the State government, so we will need to be clever in negotiating any deal to
ensure that any benefit doesn’t ameliorate over time.
ISSUE 4
With a population of 106,000 in 2010, the greater Launceston area is ranked the 17th largest city in Australia. A discussion paper recently released by the Commonwealth Government flagged the need for consolidation of its 18 largest cities, to make them "more productive, sustainable and liveable".
• What are your ideas for a blueprint to reduce people's dependency on cars, develop high quality public transport, reduce cities' carbon footprints and improve urban planning? How can this be sustainable for Launceston City Council's budget?
A difficult and challenging question as I feel that we are currently a city that lacks scale to sustain the frequency of public transport that provides the regular services to meet the impatient needs of our travellers. We have a culture of wanting to be where we want to be when we want to be there and therefore jumping in a car and parking outside our destination is our transport of choice, or we take our car just in case there is something else we might need to do during the day.
Having said that the sustainable transport reviews that have been done in recent years provide us with a framework to ensure future urban planning and development move us toward a less car dependent society. The current City Heart project is utilising this framework and the designs currently being discussed incorporate a walking and bike friendly environment. Clearly the City budget needs to consider the affordability of all initiatives and evaluate the value and cost to our ratepayers.
ISSUE 5
In 2011 economist Saul Eslake said Tasmania's Local Government revenue (rates) was 5% above the national average per head of population, higher than any State (except Northern Territory). Tasmanian Councils also raised 22% less per head from user charges for goods and services than the Australian average and received 60% more per head in grants and subsidies from other levels of government.
Rates in Launceston rise each year and much faster than average weekly earnings (AWE).
Asset wealth is not an indication of income or an ability to pay, but Launceston City Council continues to use AAV to assess rating distribution.
Rates contribute to our cost of living expenses and these expenses are second only to healthcare expenses.
• Do you believe that Council rates should be a form of taxation, where those said to have the capacity to pay more should pay more for Council facilities and services than other people? Should a flat residential rate apply, where all ratepayers pay the same amount like Brighton and Georgetown, or a capped residential rate like Devonport?
The method of rating has been discussed regularly over the past 2 years and we are yet to arrive on a landing at LCC. The reality is that the Council needs to generate a certain level of rate revenue regardless of the methodology, so whatever we do there will be winners and losers on any change that is affected.
I understand that AAV will be phased out in the next year or so and the methods available are those above, land value and capital value. We, as a council, will need to take a position on this in the next few months but I am aware the Capital Value provides the least change across the board. This clearly means those that have developed properties will pay more than those with less developed, so a form of taxation or means test could be argued is being applied. Is this fair? Probably not, but it is the way many things are done. As in all systems there are anomalies and people that are adversely impacted and whatever system we end up using we need to be have some flexibility to deal with the severely disadvantaged.
ISSUE 4
With a population of 106,000 in 2010, the greater Launceston area is ranked the 17th largest city in Australia. A discussion paper recently released by the Commonwealth Government flagged the need for consolidation of its 18 largest cities, to make them "more productive, sustainable and liveable".
• What are your ideas for a blueprint to reduce people's dependency on cars, develop high quality public transport, reduce cities' carbon footprints and improve urban planning? How can this be sustainable for Launceston City Council's budget?
A difficult and challenging question as I feel that we are currently a city that lacks scale to sustain the frequency of public transport that provides the regular services to meet the impatient needs of our travellers. We have a culture of wanting to be where we want to be when we want to be there and therefore jumping in a car and parking outside our destination is our transport of choice, or we take our car just in case there is something else we might need to do during the day.
Having said that the sustainable transport reviews that have been done in recent years provide us with a framework to ensure future urban planning and development move us toward a less car dependent society. The current City Heart project is utilising this framework and the designs currently being discussed incorporate a walking and bike friendly environment. Clearly the City budget needs to consider the affordability of all initiatives and evaluate the value and cost to our ratepayers.
ISSUE 5
In 2011 economist Saul Eslake said Tasmania's Local Government revenue (rates) was 5% above the national average per head of population, higher than any State (except Northern Territory). Tasmanian Councils also raised 22% less per head from user charges for goods and services than the Australian average and received 60% more per head in grants and subsidies from other levels of government.
Rates in Launceston rise each year and much faster than average weekly earnings (AWE).
Asset wealth is not an indication of income or an ability to pay, but Launceston City Council continues to use AAV to assess rating distribution.
Rates contribute to our cost of living expenses and these expenses are second only to healthcare expenses.
• Do you believe that Council rates should be a form of taxation, where those said to have the capacity to pay more should pay more for Council facilities and services than other people? Should a flat residential rate apply, where all ratepayers pay the same amount like Brighton and Georgetown, or a capped residential rate like Devonport?
The method of rating has been discussed regularly over the past 2 years and we are yet to arrive on a landing at LCC. The reality is that the Council needs to generate a certain level of rate revenue regardless of the methodology, so whatever we do there will be winners and losers on any change that is affected.
I understand that AAV will be phased out in the next year or so and the methods available are those above, land value and capital value. We, as a council, will need to take a position on this in the next few months but I am aware the Capital Value provides the least change across the board. This clearly means those that have developed properties will pay more than those with less developed, so a form of taxation or means test could be argued is being applied. Is this fair? Probably not, but it is the way many things are done. As in all systems there are anomalies and people that are adversely impacted and whatever system we end up using we need to be have some flexibility to deal with the severely disadvantaged.
At the Council level there is still divided opinion and I am still reviewing my position but certainly a
capped residential rate and percentage increases based on a more equitable basis going forward is
something I am considering.
No comments:
Post a Comment