LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ON LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND MOVING ON

 

Read together these two letters make some sense out of recent events and the State Govt Minister looking to flex his mussels in regard to the forced 'amalgamations' of Councils. Minister Street is absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that 29 Councils in Tasmania is way too many and that the status quo is unsustainable.

The problem being how cut to the numbers, and make the fiscal savings and have accountable local governance. Politically it is difficult to sack Councillors and Aldermen but ultimately it will need to be done. It is the way of the world and it is what it is! Then comes the problem of viable and accountable 'representation'. In any event there is a need to first determine the needs of the people being 'governed' and to assist them in overcoming their fears – and there is much to fear.

Interestingly, there appears to be a sense of discomfort among the ranks Councillors and Aldermen given that they personally have something to lose – especially those serving on Council as a SIDEgig. Self interest can be an enabling force yet all too often it can be a powerful inhibitor.

The hurdle here is 'representation' but Indirect Elected Representational Democracy (IERD)does not come with an automatic guarantee of accountable representation given the networks of vested interests that become evident. It may well be the 'governance system' that the Western World advocates but it does not automatically offer transparent accountable representation – arguably to the contorary.

On the other hand, 'appointed representatives' actually can offer a greater level of accountability given that there are mechanisms put in place to hold the incumbents to account. You actually do not need to wait for an election to hold appointed non-performing  members to account if the protocols are there. Nevertheless, it is all important that equitable and effective mechanisms actually do need to be put in place.

Noel Manning in his letter raises the notion of a Ward System. It is something that in Tasmania might well have value and especially so if the State were to opt for the much touted 'three Council or Commission model' for the State's local governance. This approach has considerable merit if it comes with mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability to the constituency and the 'entities' are 'policed' by the Minister for Local Government and Cabinet.

Brian khan's letter is more than interesting when he alerts us to the paucity of expertise in some, arguably many local governance jurisdictions where General Managers have inappropriately usurped the powers of governance and virtually deemed that they, all by themselves, have the wherewithal to deliver on the 'expertise' provisions in the Local Govt Act 1993.

Of course GM's, along with any reasonable thinking person. could not have the 'domain knowledge' that engineers, architects and any number of professionals have and GMs should not act as if they do. Nevertheless, it is more than concerning that the Act quite deliberately affords them the latitude so to do and for Councils not to have such 'experts' within their administrations. This turns out to be a serious, albeit surreptitious, flaw in the reigning status quoism at work local governance's operational wing.

Interestingly, the question hanging in the air here in regard to the Ward System is how might Govt define a Ward in 21st C Tasmania. It so happens that in Tasmania an earlier government commissioned the mapping and numbering of catchments. ​​​​​​

In the mapping, water management is focused on 48 catchments across Tasmania. These catchments include one or more watercourses and have been defined at a suitable scale for resource management based on a combination of water flow, land tenure and land management. 

Given this, it would make almost perfect sense to base a Ward System on catchments. By extension, catchments could similarly be the basis for 'Catchment Assemblies' with random rotational membership tasked to ensure that their relevant 'placemaking' in regard to their council/commission was being taken account of in a open and transparent manner. 

While these 'entities' would need resourcing, prudent planning would ensure that they be of a scale that does not repeat the top heavy bureaucratic modelling that all too many Councils have allowed to evolve into. The new Commissions/Councils would and should surely be carrying the required managerial role under their patronage and guidance.

'Albeit somewhat audacious, a 'catchment based ward system' seems to be a proposition with as much merit as it has promise. This is especially so given Tasmania's histories and the relative diversity of the State's cultural placescaping over time - pre-colonisation up to the present.

It is increasingly evident that Tasmania's current model of Local Govt. and the kind of democracy that was put in place in 1993 is well past its use-by-date and consequently it has continually lost functionality. The 'givens' that informed the modelling in 1993 even then were anachronistic in retrospect. Currently 'that democratic model' is  losing currency, and along with that, any functionality it has retained almost by the minute.

For example, there are incidences of management distorting the roles, and sometimes blending the  functions of governance and management. That is, blending governance's strategic, policy and legislative role with management's implementation function. Even when this might not be the case the 'goings-on' in camera and their circumstances raise concerns to do with corruption and corruptibility. 

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

 John Adams, American statesman, attorney, diplomat, writer, and Founding Father, said and somewhat poignantly “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”  There is a pungent smell about the current model of local governance in Tasmania in that it too seems to be holding a pistol to its head. 

Indeed, Minister Street is now saying, and unambiguously, that the 'status quo' is unsustainable and clearly in acknowledgement of 'the model's' fading relevance and short falls that come to his attention.

Looking to another more recent American President, Ronald Reagan, it was he who told us that the 'status quo' was quite simply Latin for the mess we are in. And, after saying so, he watched on as Soviet Russia murdered itself much like Adams said was inevitable.

Tasmania it seems always wants to learns its lessons the hard way. Well we have, and at considerable expense. Now is the time for change, real change, and hopefully enlightened change without any hint of the status quo being in the pathway ahead.

In placemaking, 'place' determines the cultural realities within it, and all the while those 'realities' are at work shaping 'place' and the 'placedness' that makes them 'homeplaces'. All this is at the very core of local governance – democratic or autocratic governance.

In placemaking Indirect Elected Representational Democracy (IERD) can never be the SILVERbullet it is presumed to be in the Western world. For instance, 21st C digital technologies have come to a point where they can empower Direct Deliberative Democracies (DDD) well beyond anything the IRDmodel currently delivers in Tasmania, or indeed anywhere ever.

Therefore, IF there is to be CHANGE let it be real change in a 21st C context unhindered by the failings of that the unsustainable 'status quo' clearly operates within – that redundant, now quite dysfunctional,19th cum 20th C mindset.

DAM WATER CONCERNS AND YES IT IS BLOODY CONCERNING!

 

Click on the image above to enlarge

Yet again, Ron is on the money. Tasmania's so-called 'planners' imagine that 'water' is available like money on the MONEYtree. Fresh water is something to be treasured and not anything to be spent WILLYnilly.  No longer should drinking quality fresh water be flushed down toilets. No longer should urban storm water be fed into sewerage plants. No longer should the discharges from electricity generation be dumped into waterways when it might be used for food and fibre production.

While ever planners sit in their ivory towers imaging that they are 'in charge', and are able to predict the future, our as yet unborn grandchildren are in peril. 

Why?  Because these planners serial and surreal ineptitude just goes unchallenged for a myriad of reasons. It turns out that every one of those reasons has a dollar sign in front of it ... as Ron would be inclined to say!

REAL CHANGE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLEASE!

 

The government is not ruling out forced council amalgamations after indicating that the number of councils across the state is "unsustainable". [That has been evident for decades and this realisation is an exemplar of the level of disconnection in regard to governance's purpose and the administration of it in local govt.]

Local government legislation allows the minister to act alone in making decisions on mergers without the approval of  parliament. [That being so the Minister could be audacious and do what needs to be done. Abandon the Indirect Representational model of democracy and replace it with the Direct Deliberative model] 

When asked by Labor whether the state government would use this power, Local Government Minister Nic Street failed to deny forced amalgamations.

Mr Street said the local government review was underway, and in the first six months of that review it became clear that "the status quo is unsustainable for a number of councils going forward in this state".[That was know at the outset]

He said a report with recommendations will be released at the end of March, and there will be options for the local government sector to shape what course would be taken moving forward.[The status quo will as likely as not be Councils and their management want given the fiscal rewards at stake]

"I have been absolutely clear the whole way along that I want to be open and transparent about how we go through this process," Mr Street said. [If so that has been poorly presented and marketed]

"The government's role will come when the report is delivered to us ... I am not going to preempt what recommendations might be in that report but I am more than happy to put on the record that we want to be transparent and open about this process. What role parliament has will be a decision that we need to make going forward as well," he said.

"At the councils that I have visited [28 out of 29], I have made it clear that all options are still on the table as far as the state government is concerned because we have not received the second report." [Nonetheless, 'THE PROCESS' is slanted towards the status quo Indirect Representational model with a repair here and there when in a 21st C context CHANGE needs to be a fundamental shift away from it]

Labor local government spokesman Luke Edmunds said the minister was looking to forcibly amalgamate Tasmania's local councils by stealth. [Quite probably and all the while essentially maintaining the status and that too by stealth]

He said Labor did not support forced amalgamations and the loss of jobs and local services across Tasmania. [That need not be so with audacious and fundamental change]

"Minister Street has arrogantly refused to say if he'll take on board the views of councils and their communities and won't rule out using his powers via Section 214 E of the Act to force the issue," Mr Edmunds. [YES that is an ominous and subliminal signal coming from Minister Street] 

"If he wants to close down councils and trash local jobs in the process he should commit to bringing his amalgamations agenda before both houses of parliament," he said. [That is true but parliament needs to be deliberating on the model of governance NOT weather or not forced amalgamations should occur]

"The future of local government is worthy of more than a few poorly advertised town hall meetings that excluded every city in Tasmania." [That is so, so true albeit that it is being said rather late in a rather questionable process]

WATCH THIS SPACE

3 QUESTIONS FOR LAUNCESTON'S MAYOR AND ALL COUNCILLORS

PLEASE CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

8.1.1. Public Question on Notice - Ray Norman - Delegated Authorities - 1 March 2023 FILE NO: SF6381 AUTHOR: Anthea Rooney (Council and Committees Officer) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Michael Stretton

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES: The following question, submitted to the Council in writing on 1 March 2023 by Ray Norman, has been answered by Michael Stretton (Chief Executive Officer).

Questions: 1. Given that it is a prudent, judicious and sound administrative practice and despite the Mayor deeming that it would be too difficult to do, will Council - that is the 12 elected representatives on Council - now move with some urgency to remove All Delegated Authorities from the Council’s Register of Delegated Authorities and over time assign the Delegated Authorities to the appropriate people who currently have the appropriate qualifications and skill sets to hold the delegated authority assigned to them when and if the need arises? 

Response: At this point in time there is no intention to alter the current practice of assigning or administering Delegated Authorities within the Council. Councillors, should they wish to have the practice altered or reviewed, have the opportunity to raise any concerns in a variety of discussion forums whilst undertaking their role as an elected member. The response provided in the Council Agenda of 15 December 2022 provides clear details of the functioning of the Council's Delegations Register. It has been reproduced for reference. … Delegations enhance efficiency at the City of Launceston by devolving the execution of administrative matters and functions to appropriate levels within the organisation. The City of Launceston’s Delegations Register is publicly available via www.launceston.tas.gov.au. The Delegations Register clearly indicates the functions and powers that have been delegated by a decision of Council. Decisions of Council are frequently sought in relation to the review of delegations, or to respond to changes in legislation

8.1.2. Public Question on Notice - Ray Norman - Intellectual Property Concerns FILE NO: SF6381 AUTHOR: Anthea Rooney (Council and Committees Officer) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Michael Stretton .

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES: The following question, submitted to the Council in writing on 1 March 2023 by Ray Norman, has been answered by Dan Ryan (General Manager Community and Place Network). 

Questions: 1. Given that, in regard to the ownerships of intellectual property, the Council has been found to be poorly informed, in regard to intellectual property (IP) rights, the moral rights of authors, the payment of appropriate fees to cultural producers and copyright law generally, will Council now ensure that all appropriate staff and all Councillors are adequately briefed in regard to IP rights, the moral right of authors, current conventions in the field and the appropriate sources of advice and especially so given that the Council has been seen to be wanting in the past and at the expense of ratepayers and there being a current instance? 

Response: A response to a previous Question on Notice from Mr Norman regarding the Council's understanding of copyright appeared in the Council Agenda of 21 April 2022. The response detailed the Council's approach to its obligations under the Copyright Act 1968. The Council has conducted a number of workshops and seminars for its staff regarding the issues of copyright in the workplace. Access to professional development opportunities for Councillors around such topics are provided as required. 

8.1.3. Public Questions on Notice - Ray Norman - Housing Crisis FILE NO: SF6381 AUTHOR: Anthea Rooney (Council and Committees Officer) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Michael Stretton .

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES: The following question, submitted in writing to the Council on 1 March 2023 by Ray Norman, has been answered by Dan Ryan (General Manager Community and Place Network).

Questions: 1. Given the State Government’s somewhat concerning disinclination to act, against audible community concern and distress, the increasing numbers of people in the municipality dealing with housing stress and the reported large number of vacant residential properties in the municipality and properties that are reportedly deliberately left vacant for long periods of time in order to win a some financial cum taxation advantage, against this background, will the Council maintain a register of currently vacant residential properties that the Council ensures has their access to power and water removed and that are required to display a metre square sign at the front of the property denoting that it is a registered vacant residential property. 

Response: The Council has no plans to initiate or maintain a register of currently vacant residential properties within the Municipality, nor is it within Council’s remit to apply for or request disconnection of services such as power and water with regard to privately owned properties. The Council does not intend to request that property owners display any signage that denotes that a property is vacant and considers that such notification would contribute to vandalism and other related issues. 

GREENING LAUNCESTON

YES INDEED IF HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY IT but given the history here ECHO7250 suggests that concerned citizens by-pass Your Voice Your Launceston and take their concerns, suggestions, and aspiration straight to the Councillors personally in the best way they can. The 'YOUR VOICE' strategy is tokenistic

By doing so citizens can avoid having their aspirations filtered, blended, blanded and possibly distorted by Council's Management towards achieving some form of convenient lowest common denominator.

It needs to be said however that this DRAFT STRATEGY carries all the characteristics of moonshine brewed in the woodshed and in the dark. It is now 'on the market' on the assumption that it's 'good drop'. Since the metaphor here is to do with intoxication it needs to be said that it might intoxicate but it is far, far away from being a 'smooth drop' ... illicit as it may be. 

Moreover, the venue where this illicit drop is being marketed should have a warning sign on the door saying: 

SLY STUFF FLOGGED HERE 

ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Thinking back we might think of Joseph Goebbels and his saying that "a lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth"

In any event as that American humorist Mark Twain tells us, if we ever do the right thing. It will gratify some people and it will astonish the rest. Let's be astonished!

Click on the image to enlarge

THE VISION The vision here imagines Launceston to be a 'city' and as some kind of monolithic entity which in fact is a misrepresentation of Launceston's 'placedness' and its status as a 'municipality'. 

Launceston's borders are ill defined and in fact they are somewhat blurred. Like 'cities' elsewhere Launceston is a network of precincts and it ever likely to be increasingly so and to be increasingly diverse relative to cultural sensibilities. 

Thus the presumed 'authority' that is being invoked/imposed is highly contestable and by extension the assumed outcomes, while desirable, they become less likely in a monolithic context. Likewise, the concept of, and the utility of, an 'Urban Forest' is not particularly helpful when imagining the operative biological ecologies in urban and peri-urban cultural landscapes.

THEME 1’ as proposed is challengeable on the grounds of current practice given that if a ‘development’ is impacted upon by existing vegetation, it has invariably been sacrificed and without mitigation. 

Examples of this in this municipality are a legion. Moreover, suggestions that the city follow strategies elsewhere have consistently and persistently fallen upon ’deaf ears’. 

This is especially so where there is a financial impediment for the loss of canopy and where there is an offset strategy whereby a ‘canopy planting’ is initiated in an appropriate place has been put forward.

The retention of current canopy cover is an will be a critical consideration going forward not only from the perspective of 'canopy cover' but also in regard to carbon sequestration.

THEME 2 appears to be framed in such a way as it can ‘skirted around’ or circumvented on the unreliable compliance of an unaccountable bureaucrat. Moreover, it pays no attention whatsoever to contemporary urban ecologies and is likewise laced with some obscure and unexplained ideology. 

Interestingly nowhere is the concepts of cultural landscaping and place shaping muted. Might this be due to the concept being disruptive of the status quo albeit unsustainable in a 21st C context.

All this lets planners and developers 'off-the-hook' and allows, sanctions even, the assumed overarching imperatives.

THEME 3 falls into the category ‘mythology’ – perhaps urban myth making. The word ‘forest’ comes with ‘cultural cargo’. A forest is an area of land dominated by trees. Hundreds of definitions of forest are used throughout the world, incorporating factors such as tree density, tree height, land use, legal standing, and ecological function. 

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines a forest as, "Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. 

Likewise, ‘urban’ comes with ‘cultural cargo’. Urban culture is the culture of towns and cities. The defining theme is the presence of a great number of very different people in a very limited space. Most are strangers to each other but still try to be polite to each other more often than not. 

Therefore, it possible to build a vast array of subcultures close to each other, exposed to each other's influence, but without necessarily intruding into people's private lives and/or cultural realities. 

Blending and blanding the concepts of ‘urbanism and forestry’ is an exercise in mythmaking that ‘in places’ there will be conflicts and contests all emanating from conflicting cultural sensitivities and sensibilities. 

Arguably, the invocation of ‘urbanism and forestry’ is so contestable as to be dysfunctional. However, IF the objective was to build an ecological diverse cultural landscape that pays respect to urban ‘placemaking’ in ways where it is an imperative that a bio-diverse canopy cover is a common and cooperative goal, that would be a monumental step forward.

THEME 4 Like the ‘themes’ that lead to it, the evidence is that here the top-down hierarchical management model is in the mindset rather than a diverse interfacing network of ‘place oriented’ mindsets where a diversity of placemakers in various manifestations share in the development of ‘streetscapes’ and precincts in collaboration with individuals, various groups and civic administrators. 

Homemaking is placemaking and at home… We do second chances…We do real.…We do mistakes.…We do I’m sorrys.…  We do loud really well.… We do understanding well .... We do it together best of all. Everyone is a placemaker

The top-down approach here, on the evidence systematically fails, so an alternative more place-oriented strategy needs to be invoked. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and like the gymnastic pyramid it will inevitably fail due to the weakest gymnast falling.  Hierarchies always fail whereas a tree will continue to grow albeit that it may lose branches.

The imperative here aught not to be the imposition of a strategy but an alternative approach where there is dynamic community engagement and interfacing activities in a holistic search for a more sustainable cultural landscape that acknowledges diversity, the histories relative to place and the various cultural sensibilities involeved in placemaking and homemaking. 

THEME 5 In reality the objective here would and should be an outcome of community engagement needed to generate the goals being aimed for. However, it needs to be said that the most appropriate outcome is most unlikely to come from some orchestrated top-down hierarchical paradigm. 

Given that ‘the exercise’ is essentially to do with ‘placemaking’ a network of networks is more likely to deliver the desired outcomes that any attempt at a one-size-fits-all administration oriented approach. 

In the end what is important is a sense of ‘ownership’ without any hint of the them-and-us syndrome. Humans are social animals, hardwired to form groups. So, why do we treat some groups favorably and yet ostracise others? This is the them-and-us syndrome at work and it not only divides society but has historically led to ethnocide, all manner of phobias and even genocide.

So what causes the them-and-us syndrome and how does this thinking trap divide society? Arguably there are three processes that lead to it ... Evolution ... Learned Survival ... Identity. Nonetheless these things need to be contextualised in the 21st C and especially so if we are to avoid humanity's worst case scenarios.

........

IN THE EXAMINER ... HAVE YOUR SAY: The City of Launceston will look to set an ambitious target of doubling the tree canopy cover across urban areas of the municipality by 2040. That's just one of a number of key deliverables outlined in the Council's inaugural Urban Greening Strategy, which is now open for public comment on the City of Launceston's engagement platform, Your Voice Your Launceston...............Launceston Mayor Danny Gibson said that the Council recognises that street trees and other forms of greening enhances not only the visual amenity of many parts of Launceston but they also helped create a strong sense of identity in many public spaces both in the CBD and in the surrounding suburbs............... "Currently, canopy cover across what's considered the area of interest in our region is around 19 per cent," Mayor Gibson said............... "Our aim over the next 20 years is to see that level of cover effectively double to around 40 per cent and we think that's an entirely achievable outcome." Mayor Gibson said that the benefits of reaching that figure would be generationally significant............... "We know that increased canopy cover enhances biodiversity in our urban environment as well as mitigating the impacts of climate change, particularly reducing the effects of heat," Mayor Gibson said. "Ultimately, our vision is for a highly accessible green city with robust sustainable communities and a vibrant and diverse inner city core." To help meet this target and the broader vision of the strategy, the Council has collaborated with the Launceston Chamber of Commerce on a shared approach to the provision of green infrastructure ............... In May 2022, the two organisations signed a memorandum of understanding with both committing to jointly developing a strategy and implementation plan that builds on existing greening projects while establishing actions and timelines to enhance the further greening projects, with a specific target of the CBD. "One of the aims of this MOU is to look at ways to integrate greening into the city centre to create a nice place that people not only want to visit, but want to stay and spend time there," Mayor Gibson said............... "One example I am particularly proud of the recent investments by the City of Launceston in Civic Square. It's a space that has been transformed into a magnificent green oasis for the community to enjoy............... "Most days you can find people sitting in the shelter of the trees having lunch or reading a book or sharing a chat over a cup of coffee or watching their children play in the interactive water feature outside the library............... "The space also includes a community garden as well as providing a wonderful location for events and community gatherings, which just add to a vibrant and inclusive city centre.".............. Mayor Gibson said outside the CBD, there were a number of opportunities to increase the canopy cover around walking and cycling paths by adding trees and greenery to create added amenity, as well as trees to create cooling in areas where people gather to wait for public transport such as bus stops and shelters............... Providing shading around schools yards and playgrounds, particularly in the Northern Suburbs, was a specific area highlighted as currently being deficient, Mayor Gibson said............... The draft strategy is now out for community consultation, and Mayor Gibson has urged all Northern Tasmanians with an interest in greening the region to be involved............... "Once we have the community's input, Council will prepare an implementation plan and work with businesses and residents to put the plan into action," Mayor Gibson said............... "And that's one of the main messages we want people to hear - is that Council cannot achieve this on its own. "It's vital that the community is involved and comes with us on this journey as we look to grow not only more trees and canopy cover on public and private land, but look at new and innovative ways to green our urban and inner city areas, and to provide more public space for both urban and suburban gardens." For more information or to engage with the Urban Greening Strategy, go to www.tomorrowtogetherlaunceston.com.au..............

RECYCLE, UPCYCLE ACTION AND INACTION

The Australian Government has welcomed an offer by Woolworths and Coles to take joint responsibility for the stockpiles of soft plastics that have accumulated as a result of the suspension of REDcycle. 

Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek said it was a positive example of retailers taking responsibility for the lifecycle of products that they have sold and shows that the Government’s Soft Plastics Taskforce is making progress. 

Woolworths and Coles are taking responsibility for the stockpiles that exist but more work is needed before recycling collection for soft plastics can start again.

REDcycle. suspended collections in November 2022. At the time it was Australia’s largest soft plastic collection program, however it faced a series of processing and recycling issues. This was compounded by a fire shutting down its largest recycling facility.

SEE https://wastemanagementreview.com.au/genox-recycling-plant-helps-fast-track-move-to-plastic-recycling/

Genox recycling plant helps fast-track move to plastic recycling

D&M Waste Management started in 2001 as a bulk waste transport business, with current General Manager, Daniel Taylor, taking over in 2012. The business has since evolved to become a leading player in the waste management industry and has more recently made the move into the recycling arena.  ..... The company has several contracts with local government authorities throughout Perth and the north-west of Western Australia for bulk verge waste collection including green waste, general waste and recyclables..... Daniel says while the move into plastics recycling was something the company had been considering for a while, it was fast-tracked by the national export ban on waste high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastics in 2021. The ban coincided with the launch of the Federal Government’s Recycling Modernisation Fund, which D&M successfully obtained. This funded a significant part of the Genox recycling plant that the company purchased.....“We were extremely grateful for the financial support we received from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, which allowed us to enter the recycling market quicker than we anticipated,” Daniel says. .... The Genox brand has been distributed and supported exclusively by Applied Machinery since its entry into the Australian market. Today more than 300 companies in Australia have Genox equipment installed, making it one of Australia’s leading suppliers of recycling machinery