DEC 9 2021 QUESTION TO COUNCIL IN REGARD TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

THE BURCHELL'S CARPARK DEBARCLE IN LAUNCESTON TAS

http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com/2021/10/an-ongoing-saga-about-purchase-of.html 

ADDITIONAL LINKS

http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com/2021/11/there-is-looming-cloud-over-integrity.html

•

http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com/2021/10/millions-of-dollars-11-questions-and.html

•

http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com/2021/10/an-ongoing-saga-about-purchase-of.html

Decision to turn car park into bus stop to benefit ratepayers Ryan Young

 POTENTIAL SITES: Locations the City of Launceston council considered. Picture: Supplied 

A decision to transform the Paterson Street Central car park into a bus interchange will save ratepayers money in the long run, City of Launceston council chief executive Michael Stretton believes. .................... Mr Stretton said council calculated it would cost about $5 million to $7 million to move the existing major bus stop on St John Street to other on-street locations in the central business district. .................... "My expectation is that we'll be able to deliver it [a new bus interchange on Paterson Street] in concert with the state government for less than what it would have been to have an on-street solution," he said. .................... Labor After 18 months of extensive research and planning, the council recently purchased a share of the Paterson Street Central car park and the old Birchalls building near it for a combined total cost of $14.4 million. .................... The council plans to turn the Birchalls building into an arcade that will house a mix of retail and food businesses. The arcade will double as a thoroughfare which connects the bus interchange and a mooted creative precinct to the Brisbane Street Mall. .................... The council assessed the suitability of 13 potential locations to move the existing bus stop to before it decided to purchase the car park and build the interchange, Mr Stretton said. IMAGE: TRANSFORMING CITY: City of Launceston council chief executive Michael Stretton is excited about taking the next step to give the city's CBD a facelift. Picture: Phillip Biggs .................... "That assessment looked at things like the roadway cross-section, the required operating space, accessibility, the impacts on the bus routing, the impacts on the dead running services and the circulation for the bus networks and impacts on the network operation, other operators, parking and road safety," he explained. .................... The list of potential locations was narrowed down to three sites on Patterson Street, Mr Stretton said. .................... "One was on the street in front of the government offices, one was on the street in front of the church and childcare centre and the other was an actual off-street solution using the Dechaineux Way and the Paterson Street Central car park," he said. .................... "Each of the two on-street options required a lot of modification and design, we costed it at about $5 million to $7 million for either of those spaces. Upon assessment, those sites had too many issues and impacts on the properties that would be immediately behind them." .................... Mr Stretton said the council would now work with the state government to design the interchange. Construction could commence next year.

JULY 29 2021 

Launceston council's Creative Precinct development caught up in legal battle ... Nick Clark .... VISION: An artist's impression of the Launceston Creative Precinct. Picture: Supplied 

The proposed $90 million Creative Precinct development in Launceston is under a cloud as a legal battle over the sale of the Paterson Street Central car park drags on. Owner of the site, Car Parks Super, and a proposed developer of the precinct, Creative Property Holdings (CPH), have been in a legal battle in the Federal Court of Australia since February about a $12 million contract for the sale of the so-called Birchalls car park site. ........................ The vision to put Launceston on the world stage for the best artistic, cultural and creative thinkers was launched more than a year ago. The Creative Precinct was touted as the home to a new creative hub which would include learning spaces, commercial tenancies and retail spaces to link to other parts of the hub, such as the bus mall and Birchalls' retail space being developed by the City of Launceston council. ........................ The proponents, New Creative Group is a consortium of designers, strategists and educators who have banded together to develop the vision for the precinct. ........................ In the Federal Court proceedings Creative Property Holdings, whose director is Chris Billing, has alleged Car Parks Super breached a November 23, 2020 contract. It has sought that the owner be required to transfer the property and is also seeking damages and costs. ........................ Car Parks Super, represented by barrister Shaun McElwaine SC, says that the firm did not make an offer to sell the property that was "capable of acceptance by the purchaser (CPH) and the Launceston City Council and in any event was expressly made subject to the exchange of contracts". ........................ Documents filed in the Federal Court reveal attempts to agree a contract between the two parties in June 2020, September 2020 and November 2020. ........................ A hearing in the Federal Court was due in May this year, but did not go ahead. ........................ Since June 8 Justice David O' Callaghan has made six orders that CPH as the applicant file and serve its written submission, but nothing further has been filed. ........................ If it went ahead the development would have been scheduled to use federal and state government funding of more than $20 million. ........................ The Federal Court documents suggest the City of Launceston council was a guarantor for CPH in two of the proposed car park purchase contracts. ........................ In the proposed June contract the City of Launceston would "guarantee the obligations of the applicant (CPH) and undertook to complete the contract in the event that the applicant breached its obligations to do so". ........................ The council paid a $1.2 million bank cheque, or 10 per cent deposit for the car park on July 9 2020, but the contract was not finalised. ........................ After further negotiations a September 2020 contract was proposed which excluded the council as guarantor. ........................ However, Car Parks Super terminated the contract on October 14 with the company saying CPH had failed to complete by the required date. It claimed the failure meant the deposit was forfeited. ........................ The deposit became a vexed issue between Car Parks Super, CPH and the council and it was not until March 8 2021 that a bank cheque was sent from Car Parks Super lawyers Archer Bushby to Launceston firm Sproal and Associates on behalf of CPH. ........................ Counsel on behalf of CPH, Viridian Lawyers, demanded that the deposit be returned to it or Sproal and Associates on November 13 . ........................ The court filings reveal the council was named as the guarantor for CPH in a proposed third contract dated November 20, 2020 which "provided that the second respondent [council] would complete the contract in the event of default by the applicant". ........................ Email correspondence from council lawyers Simmons Wolfhagen stated that the purported November 2020 offer was "signed by the second respondent (council) in its capacity as guarantor". However, it was not signed by Car Parks Super. ........................ Simmons Wolfhagen wrote to Car Parks Super counsel in December 2020 saying "if exchange does not occur within this time frame then my client's contract will be withdrawn and my client will cease to be guarantor". ........................ The City of Launceston denied to The Examiner that it was ever guarantor for CPH for the car park purchase. The Examiner asked whether the council was ever in a position where it "would as guarantor complete the contract (for the car park) in the event that the purchaser (CPH) defaulted in its obligations"? ........................ "No, the council was never in that position," a spokesman said. IMAGE Launceston Mayor Albert van Zetten. Picture: Paul Scambler ........................ Launceston Mayor Albert van Zetten said "The council has a legal agreement to purchase the site should the CPH development not proceed." https://www.examiner.com.au/story/7341169/citys-90m-plan-caught-up-in-legal-battle/

QUESTION TO COUNCIL WITHOUT NOTICE.

Click on the image to enlarge

CONTEXT

In the past I have challenged Council on the appropriateness of its ‘publication protocols’ and its application of its Intellectual Property (IP) protocols in Council’s operation. Over a number of years I have written to Mayor van Zetten and the GM [AKA CEO] and on each and every occasion, and in various ways the responses to me, in precis, has been ‘everything Council does in this regard is legal’ albeit that in many cases this is highly contestable proposition – and it was when I raised the issue. 

 

Moreover, there are examples of less than best practice in the context of ‘Council publications’ relative to widely observed ‘acknowledgement protocols’ that lamentedly casts Council in a rather poor light and in many cases would and should be open to legal challenge. In the past, Council has contested the Moral Rights provisions of the Copyright Act and notably in 2018 in regard to Stephen Walker’s Tasmanian Tableau in Civic Square – See for context https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5483771/walkers-tasmanian-tableau-will-be-put-back-home-in-civic-square/ – Council fell well short of its obligations in regard to the ‘Moral Rights’ of an author and was ultimately forced to ‘put right a wrong’. There are other examples of less than best practice in regard to Council’s somewhat cavalier approach to ‘IP matters’ – arguably attitudes that reflect poorly on community standards on display in the city.

 

Additionally, Council is predisposed to use images of people in its marketing and in ways that generally do not acknowledge the photographer/author, the subject/person and concerningly where permission has not been sought to use the image in Council’s marketing etc. This is most concerning when the subject is, albeit subliminally, is presented as a ‘token person/whatever’ – token woman, token disabled person, token indigenous person, token obscure ethnicity, etc. etc. However, how might a serving member of Council’s staff deny their ‘employer’ access to imagery of them at work?

 

This issue I have discussed with Wezley Franckombe who essentially reiterated Council’s past assertions virtually saying (deeming?) that Council’s in-house assessment of its protocols relevant to ‘it’s publications’ finds that they are legal and adequate. Mr Franckombe challenged me to provide him with evidence of Council’s current shortfalls and I randomly selected this years’ QVMAG Annual report where scrutiny reveals:

• The indigenous peoples acknowledgement appears at the beginning of the QVMAG Manager’s report when current reconciliatory convention generally locates such acknowledgement at the very beginning of such publications as a courtesy; and
• Photographic images of people, objects, graphics etc. do not anywhere acknowledge the author/photographer and not always the author/maker of an object of ‘cultural production’ photographed; and
• There is no list of acknowledgements to be found in the report when one would be more than appropriate.

 

I selected this publication on the grounds that I have IP invested in the QVMAG’s collections and the institution has been the subject of my personal and ongoing research for over 20 years.

 

Respectfully, I submit that this year’s Annual Report for ‘Council’s operations’, the same might well be said and likewise it can be said of most/all of Council’s marketing material. Compared and contrasted with any other ‘publication’ – say newspapers etc, – Council publication’s standards fall well short best practice I suggest. 

 

Concerningly, it also seems that Council discourages representors et al using/providing evidence in the form of ‘newspaper clippings’ in the context of IP issues. Notably, Australian law sets out a series of clear exceptions to copyright infringement known as "fair dealing". Fair dealing exceptions allow use of copyright material for the purposes of review or criticism, research or study, parody or satire, new reporting, judicial proceedings or legal advice. Thus such advice to representors et al is clearly contestable, and ill founded, as are the standards and protocols Council insists ‘are legal’ and by implication apparently ‘deemed to be’ appropriate in every respect.

 

Additionally, paraphrased albeit, Mr Franckombe proffered the opinion that legally(?) Council was not required to do more than it does currently. Also, he advised me that he did not know about the existence of the organisation ‘Arts Law … https://www.artslaw.com.au/’, an organisation well placed to offer expert advice to ‘IP OWNERS’, Councils and other organisations etc. on any matter. Alert to this, consequently, Council has access to ‘expert advice’, and as I understand it, Council has an adequate budget allocation in order that it  might seek and gain such advice from any source including Arts Law, Arts Tasmania, – https://www.arts.tas.gov.au/home –  and/or a range of independent specialist ARTSlaw partitioners.

 

Against this backgrounding I have framed my question to Council as below.

 

QUESTION

 

Will Councillors in open council deliberate on and initiate a process whereby Council’s management is commissioned to:

• Research and review current legal and moral obligations and conventions relative IP issues in the broadest context; and consequent to that
• In doing so seek the advice and services of experts in the field such as Arts Law, Arts Tasmania, et al; and 
• Report to Council and Council’s constituency on the IP protocols that operations such as Local Government instrumentalities are morally obliged to initiate and observe towards achieving reconciliatory objectives while embracing current best practice; and
• Recommend a set of protocols that Council will, going forward, proactively observe and implement; and
• Clearly set out, and publish, a clear set of ‘policy protocols’ Council will itself observe and expect of those reporting to Council to observe; and
• Do so by say April 2022.

 

I look forward with considerable interest to the city’s elected representative’s response.

 

Ray Norman

<zingHOUSEunlimited>

ADVICE TO RATEPAYERS WHO WISH TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THEIR COUNCIL

FOR CLIENTS' INFORMATION & CONSIDERATION

 

Please find attached a letter from Craig Limkin, Director of Local Government, for your attention.

 

Regards

Margaret Young

 

Margaret Young  |  Executive Officer

Policy and Intergovernmental Relations Division

Department of Premier and Cabinet

Level 5, 15 Murray Street

Hobart, Tasmania 7000

(p) +61 3 6232 7022  

Margaret.Young@dpac.tas.gov.au  |  www.dpac.tas.gov.au

 

NOV/DEC QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

 

ONE MAY ASK & THE ANSWERS ARE ALWAYS SURPRISING

PLEASE CICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

 

The Functions of Councillors

Local Government Act 1993 Version current from 1 July 2020 to date (accessed 31 October 2021 at 13:30) 

28. Functions of councillors 

(1) A councillor, in the capacity of an individual councillor, has the following functions: 

(a) to represent the community;.

(b) to act in the best interests of the community;.

(c) to facilitate communication by the council with the community;

(d) to participate in the activities of the council;

(e) to undertake duties and responsibilities as authorised by the council.

(2) The councillors of a council collectively have the following functions:

(a) to develop and monitor the implementation of strategic plans and budgets;

(b) to determine and monitor the application of policies, plans and programs for – 

      (i) the efficient and effective provision of services and facilities; and .

      (ii) the efficient and effective management of assets; and 

      (iii) the fair and equitable treatment of employees of the council;

(c) to facilitate and encourage the planning and development of the municipal area in the best interests of the community; 

(d) to appoint and monitor the performance of the general manager; 

(e) to determine and review the council's resource allocation and expenditure activities; 

(f) to monitor the manner in which services are provided by the council.

(3) In performing any function under this Act or any other Act, a councillor must not – 

(a) direct or attempt to direct an employee of the council in relation to the discharge of the employee's duties; or

(b) perform any function of the mayor without the approval of the mayor

(4) A councillor is to represent accurately the policies and decisions of the council in performing the functions of councillor.

LETTER FROM THE MAYOR

Click above to enlarge

CLIMATE EMERGENCY POLICY: City of Launceston clearly does not know what to do next

IF you follow 'the science' as each day passes you discover that someone somewhere is actually doing something about implementing a policy that requires action and change.

Local governance is front and centre when it comes to the class of 'cultural landscaping' that is required to develop sustainable communities.

In Tasmania, the rhetoric so, so, often flows thick and fast as do the promises relative to being committed to change for the benefit of the planet, future generations, whatever. However, if you look for evidence on the ground beyond the rhetoric you are not likely to find anything of substance.

Yes, yes you'll be pointed to a 'policy decision' but not to an exemplar of its implementation.

Please click on nan image to enlarge

 

READ AN ABC NEWS ITEM 2019  … CLICK HERE  

WATVH A VIDEO VIA THIS LINK … CLICK HERE 

LISTEN TO THIS ON THE SCIENCE SHOW … CLICK HERE 

Bureaucratic Recalcitrance at Launceston's Town Hall

Please click on an image to enlarge 

DA 31 Brisbane Street Launceston DA| 0464/2021

VIDEO LINK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n48kjR-we_E

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Introduction 

This Development Application (DA) brings into question several aspects of Tasmania’s planning processes and specifically so when its interpretation and implementation is ‘entrusted’ to Local Govt. Typically, a DA is oversighted by a General Manager (GM) who in turn “guarantees in writing” that Councillors/Alderpeople are making ‘determinations’ as a ‘Planning Authority’ upon the advice of people who have the appropriate qualifications and experience to enable them to give such advice to Councillors – those approving or rejecting a DA. 

Notably, as advised by the Director of Local Govt., the Act is silent on the necessary ‘qualifications and/or experience’ a GM, in compliance with SECTION 65 of the Act must have in order to assert that she/he can in fact make such a “guarantee” with veracity. 

SECTION 65 is quoted below: 

• 65. Qualified persons 

(1) A general manager must ensure that any advice, information or recommendation given to the council or a council committee is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation. 

(2) A council or council committee is not to decide on any matter which requires the advice of a qualified person without considering such advice unless 

(a) the general manager certifies, in writing 

(i) that such advice was obtained; and 

(ii) that the general manager took the advice into account in providing general advice to the council or council committee; and 

(b) a copy of that advice or, if the advice was given orally, a written transcript or summary of that advice is provided to the council or council committee with the general manager's certificate. 

This DA has aspects to it that bring into question a range of considerations beyond ‘stock standard’ developments in the urban cultural landscape that arguably have significant impacts upon the wider community and well beyond the precinct within which it is located. 

Councillors, as ‘community representatives’ will need to consider these issues carefully before granting approval – or indeed denying approval. 

In the event that Councillors are in anyway unsure of the veracity of the advice they have before them they might well consider ‘leaving the DA on the table' until such time they can be ensured that they have all the appropriate advice.

In this instance, IF Council is disposed to decline approval of the DA what alternative options are open to the proponents to provide the much needed facilities it proposes in the Launceston Municipality? As always there is a multiplicity of choices and the Council along with the proponents might well seek advice from the University of Tasmania's School of Architecture. Within that school there has been an ongoing research program focused upon flexible accommodation for 'young people at risk' that arguably would have application to the issues at hand and potentially direct application if approached with an open mind.

It is not within the scope of this representation to discuss this issue beyond alerting Councillors to UTas Research in the area of concern that is at hand. Council may wish to broker an appropriate development as happens in other jurisdictions. 

For further information please se the links below.

[LINK] • [LINK] • [LINK] • [LINK] • [VIDEO] 

CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

This application comes before Council in the context that the building is 'Heritage Listed' and the developer proposes to change its use to one where it accommodates and institution charged with managing young people in a socially distressed circumstances. 

All things being equal the building might well serve such a purpose. However, 'the site' is somewhat problematic in that it lacks conducive outdoor amenity and most specifically any 'green space' on site for unsupervised 'activity'. Given the social cum cultural circumstances and the 'social stressors' the cohort of 'clients' this development aims to serve that is problematic.

It has been asserted that the lack 'space and outdoor amenity' can be overcome and offset given that the building is sited across the road from a generously spaced city parkland. While this may be the case it also poses risks and the potential for unforeseen outcomes. 

One set of risks related to the risks that the 'client cohort' might well be exposed to in such a 'public place' alone and indulging in the kinds of activity they need the 'space' for.

Another set of risks are to do with 'the public' being exposed to, confronted with, this 'client cohort' in a stress filled situation. Such situations are ever likely to present themselves and totally avoidable if the 'facility/institution' provides the necessary amenity on site.

Measuring the risk factors here requires the professional expertise of a social scientist – social welfare professional, anthropologist, cultural geographer. If 'Council planners' have not, or have not been able to access such advice, Councillors in their 'planning authority capacity', arguably would be acting without the advice SECTION 65 sets out to provide them with.

In the end, locating such a facility as one being proposed is one where 'cultural landscaping' become a primary consideration and that aught not be ignored.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Despite there being no specific reference to the tree on site in the DA, it is there and it is significant from various perspectives. From a heritage perspective it is an important component of the cultural landscape that 'the property' is an important component of. It offers visual amenity to the precinct and thus it needs protection.

Any approval of a development needs to make 'this tree's preservation' a component of approval. While it is claimed that Council in its capacity as a 'Planning Authority' has no power to preserve this tree and moreover it is also claimed that the developer can currently remove the tree without 'Council approval', 

As a planning authority Council can place any conditions upon a development it sees fit. Only a recalcitrant developer would wish to challenge that 'authority' and/or appeal it Council's decision outside Council. If it is determined that say the tree is important in respect Council's much touted 'Climate Emergency Policy' Council should be following its own strategic initiative.

In other jurisdictions councils operating as a 'Planning Authority' they place high values on trees and especially so relative to mitigating climate change and visual amenity. The City of Launceston would do well to be seen to be proactive in maintaining, or rather enhancing, the city's urban spaces' vegetative canopy cover. SEE ATTACHED GRAPHIC

In other jurisdictions councils operating as a 'Planning Authority' they have set a percentage of canopy cover that needs to be maintained – typically at least 30%. Launceston's cover is somewhat less than that. Moreover, my advice from Town Hall is that the city's 'Planning Dept.' is disinclined to follow other jurisdictions' 'planning imperatives'.in this regard irrespective of the city's 'Climate Emergency Policy' . SEE ATTACHED GRAPHIC

In other jurisdictions councils operating as a 'Planning Authority' have set a dollar value, and thus a free for the removal of a 'tree' – typically between $500 to $2000 plus – with these funds used to plant trees at other sites to offset the carbon cum amenity loss. Again, my advice from Town Hall is that the city's 'Planning Dept.' is disinclined to follow other jurisdictions' 'planning imperatives' in this regard and one officer was quite antithetic to the proposition despite the city's declared 'Climate Emergency Policy'. Given Council's strategic decision relative to the city's 'Climate Emergency Policy' . SEE ATTACHED GRAPHIC

In summary it is quite clear that the city's 'development imperatives' up to now have been careless of, and disinclined to be mindful of, Council's Climate Emergency Policy. Given developments internationally council needs to proactive in implementing its the city 'Climate Emergency Policy'  – no ifs, no buts!

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

RAY NORMAN

LAUNCESTON RESIDENT AND RATEPAYER

LETTER FROM LAUNCESTON GM/CEO MORAL RIGHTS

Click on an image to enlarge

Dear Michael, Albert & Danny,

Thank you Michael for your response and I accept that you might wish this matter to be closed but your position is nonetheless contestable. It appears that you are relying upon advice that you deem to be adequate and appropriate. And yes, I have been advised that the Local Govt. Act authorises you to do so.

Nonetheless, Copyright and Moral Rights Legislation is a matter that falls under Federal jurisdiction. You make assertions that are contestable and given that, you can expect that they will be contested and possibly at ratepayer's expense. Thus, your position must be challenged.

Three obvious points:

1.  An author cannot sign away her/his moral rights in respect to a work of their authorship. It is simply not an option available to them. Nonetheless, Council might well choose to treat their work in a 'derogatory way' BUT in doing so Council cannot continue to claim the 'sullied work' to be that of 'the author'. 

The 'marketing consequences' of such an action is clearly diminishing not only to 'the city' but by extension to its citizenry. Quite apart from anything else, it is exceedingly poor marketing.

2.  In regard to the Council’s YOUtube Video ‘The 1929 Launceston floods’ and its lack of acknowledgement to contributing 'authors et al', it needs to be noted that the Tasmanian Archives & Heritage Office is not the only 'authority' in respect that 'work' that needs/requires acknowledgement. 

In any event you offer no evidence that the Tasmanian Archives & Heritage Office have approved and in what context. There is certainly no indication of that on 'the work itself'.

3.  In regard to 'acknowledgements' in Council’s various publications, you may well be satisfied that you are overseeing an operation that is appropriately compliant. However I submit, compare just about any one of Council's publications with a daily newspaper and a 'independent critical eye' will surely provide you with sufficient evidence to challenge your assertions and complacency.

Those points made I will now seek further advice in the cause of 'cultural producers' receiving appropriate consideration based upon expert advice.

Regards,

Ray

Ray Norman

<zingHOUSEunlimited>

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

eMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com

40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250

WEBsites:http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

 “A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison

Letter from the Director

 

Click on the image to enlarge

Dear Mr. Limkin,  [Director Local Govt. Tas].

RE: Compliance with Tasmania's Local Govt. Act 

Thank you for your correspondence yesterday. Together with your previous advice to me, increasingly the evidence is that the Tasmanian Local Govt. Act 1993 provides, and increasingly so, less and less protection for ratepayers and citizens as time passes. 

Given your advice here that essentially ‘expert advice’ need not be backed by appropriate qualifications and experience given the Act’s silence/silences this is a wondrous proposition. I submit that it is a ‘creature’ of its own making that ought not be allowed to either exist or persist. 

Here it appears that ‘the Act’ intended to provide ratepayers and citizen’s with the security of a ‘professional guarantee’ based upon appropriate professional qualifications and experience. Given your advice, that can only be an empty provision. Given your advice, ‘the Act’ is rendered meaningless consequent to ‘the Act’s’ silence/silences. It appears to me that a General Manager can deem her/his advice to be ‘expert’ on her/his own cognisance and apparently it is absolutely, or functionally, unchallengeable. This takes ratepayers and citizens into perilous territory. 

By comparison, if a General Manager was to offer ‘professional advice’ – either personally or via a consultant – to Council in regard to say epidemiology relative to COVID-19 management, given your advice, it seems that ‘expertise’ can be based on any expertise a General Manager deems relevant – informal, professional, non-medical, whatever. Is that actually the case? Is that actually your advice to me? Is that in the end a credible proposition? 

Perhaps if a private citizen had unfettered access to extraordinary resources it might be the case that advice, flawed advice, advice that could be demonstrated to be flawed could possibly consider a challenge. In any event claims of level playing fields appear somewhat hollow.

Your advice previously that in order to initiate a claim of discrimination in Local Government one needs to go well beyond the ‘work place’ thus rendering one’s, a perpetrator’s, accountability functionally discretionary. In recent times we have seen such propositions relative to discrimination and harassment in other jurisdictions being contested and sometimes leading to compensation. In Local Govt. a litigant is in essence suing themselves and the expense of it escalates with every step. .

Therefore it seems that the law is indeed an ass as Dickens told us when in the eye of the law; when the law supposes that a wife acts under her husband’s direction … IF the law can suppose that, the law is indeed an ass … indeed, idiotic. Likewise, the ‘fiscal bar’ can be levitated, or floated, to whatever level –higher or lower – required to protect management’s interests for whatever reason. Typically, it seems, facilitated by SECTION 62/2 of ‘the Act’. 

Managers in the bureaucratic paradigm of Tasmania’s local governance bitterly resent the challenges ‘the citizenry’ might bring to their paradigm – their turf, their fiefdom. To them ‘outsider thinking’ is a personal affront and especially so when it is ‘informed and evidence based’. 

To challenge the protectors of the ‘bureaucratic world view’ is a challenge to those who have made themselves ‘masters’ beyond their actual authority, often beyond their expertise and many times beyond their qualifications. Typically, they manage to penetrate even glass ceilings with extraordinary ease. They become entities that are no longer public ‘servants’ as they expect, rather demand, obedience and compliance – and concerningly they are authorised penalise non-compliance. 

These unelected, unrepresentative ‘masters’ flaunt and exploit the folly of ‘representational democracy’ in its 21st C reality. They have come to accept into their houses only knowledge that is translated into their terms: within their belief systems; to fit their ideologies; to match their knowledge bases. This should not be accepted, for constituencies, communities living out cultural realities, know that to accept that rationality, and its subjectivity, it will betray all that they have struggled to put into words and build a cultural landscape that over time will generate new worlds – new realities, new opportunities. 

My complaint on this occasion was evidence based, and that was provided. Most importantly my intention was in parallel to garner a better understanding of the status quo in Tasmania’s local governance. These days, every time I use that term, Ronald Regan comes to mind albeit that I do not share, never have shared, his ‘world view’. I rarely think of him, and almost never kindly, but he did give us one truism … “status quo is quite simply Latin for the mess we are in”. In this, I find myself in furious agreement.

I dare say that there will be other occasions upon which I will seek your advice. However, please know, that your illumination of ‘the Act’s silences’ and its trickledown effect has led to a much better understanding. 

Yours sincerely, 

Ray Norman 

Ray Norman 

zingHOUSEunlimited

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network 

 eMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com 

Trevallyn TAS. 7250 

WEBsites:http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com 

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine “

The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/