REPRESENTATION DAO695/2020

CLICK HERE TO READ THE TEXT

Click here to access the submission to Council

OVERVIEW

The ‘placedness’ of this development’s ‘site’ comes with layer upon layer of histories and ‘cultural landscaping’ that reach back millennia. Consequently, the ‘place’ has an enormous Community of Ownership and Interest (COI) and this development, on the evidence to hand, is by-and-large careless of its depth and extent. Rather, it is totally focused upon the proponent’s aspirations and expectations as if the ‘place’ is not a component of a diverse ‘cultural landscape’ with a multiple layered set of communities with cognitive ownerships and cultural interests invested in 'the place'. It is a 'public place' and it needs to be understood as such.

Against this backgrounding, the discretionary status of this 'development application' is concerning given that it is fundamentally ticking a bureaucratic box in the expectation of winning community approval – as if there is nothing to be contested. That implies that a community, that on the available evidence has not received meaningful consideration could or would have anything to say. Nor might 'the community' expect to have anything resembling ‘engagement’ beyond the comfort of the proponent’s aegis and zone of interest and influence – such as it might be. Yes, there has been engagement with 'council' but not with the wider community in any wider sense.

Essentially, the DAprocess here is intended to be ‘the consultation process’ and it is clear that the proponents are not in any way interested in regarding the place’s COI in any way that resembles ‘unconditional positive regard’ – rather it sees them in an adversarial and antagonistic light and something to be overwhelmed and beaten. ..... Click here to read the full submission

UTAS LANDSCAPING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

Launceston's Intransigent Cultural Recalcitrance Exposed

TMAG, Royal Society to apologise to Tasmanian Aboriginal community as part of petroglyphs return

‘Workers remove the 14,000-year-old Preminghana petroglyphs from their original location on the far-North-West Coast in the 1960s. They are part of a network of Aboriginal rock carvings.

Two of Tasmania's longest-running institutions will formally apologise to the Aboriginal community as part of the process in repatriating the Preminghana petroglyphs to their home on the far-North- West Coast.

The Royal Society of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery will offer paired apologies on February 15 "in recognition of the shared history of the organisations".

The text of the apology will be made available on the day. A TMAG spokesperson said it was part of the reconciliation process.

MORE ON THE PREMINGHANA PETROGLYPHS:

Aboriginal leader slams wait for rock carvings return

City of Launceston agrees to repatriate Preminghana petroglyphs

NAIDOC Week 2020: urgent call for petroglyphs' return

TMAG agrees to pass on final permit to Aboriginal leaders

"Whilst the apology event and the physical return of the petroglyphs are not happening on the same day, they are both a demonstration of TMAG's commitment to strengthening its relationship with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community," she said.

The Royal Society was involved in the practice of exhuming the bodies of Aboriginal Tasmanians before they would be dismembered and often displayed to the public.

The practice continued throughout the 19th century and included the mutilation of the bodies of the last "full-blooded" Aboriginal Tasmanians, Truganini and William Lanne.

TMAG included the remains of Aboriginal people in its collections.

Along with the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, TMAG stored the Preminghana petroglyphs after their removal in the 1960s.

The 14,000-year-old petroglyphs will be returned to their original location on the far-North West Coast in early March, involving transportation by truck and the possible use of a helicopter to lift the several-tonne rock carvings into place.

Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania chairman Michael Mansell said the apologies from the two institutions were an important step.

"It signifies a change of attitude in Tasmanian society, reflected by two fairly conservative institutions who are now taking responsibility for their past actions, rather than just saying 'here's the petroglyphs, take them, we're not going to talk about what we did'," he said.

"They're saying 'let's open the books, and let's be honest and truthful about how we got them, how we disregarded the feelings of Aboriginal people, and did what we wanted to do because we were part of white society'."

END

OPINION

As Michael Mansell has said, this is an important step. Nonetheless, why isn’t the city of Launceston and the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QMAG) apologising as well?

Somewhat ironically Minister Jaensch, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, left it to Remembrance Day, Nov 11, 2020 to remember to ‘approve’ the petroglyphs’ handback.

Both Council and the QVMAG have much to do in regard to reconciliation and yet again they have been found wanting.

Michael Stretton’s assertion, or was he deeming it, and in open council, that the city’s councillors were not QVMAG Trustees was and is a flawed understanding of the councillors’ governance role in regard to the QVMAG’s collections.

Likewise, Mr Stretton’s assertion that the QVMAG’s petroglyphs were being “deaccessioned” which, on the evidence, couldn’t be so or even verified as there is no evidence of them ever being ‘accessioned’ – formally taken into the QVMAG’s ‘ownership’.

By extension, this implies that the petroglyphs were stolen, or on loan or on the very best construction ‘taken into the institution’s care’ given that that at the time it was imagined and assumed that Tasmania’s Aboriginal people became ‘extinct’ with Truganini’s death.

The Councillors were not required to approve the petroglyph’s “deaccession”. What they had the opportunity to do was to just hand them back to the pakana people given that there was no ‘demonstrable ownership’ in any context to relinquish – except perhaps by bureaucratic deeming.

It turns out that her death was all so convenient in the context of the colonial aftermath given that she had a sister living on Kangaroo Island and Fanny Cochrane Smith lived on in southern Tasmania until she died in 1905.

So, the QVMAG is deeply embedded in all this as an institution’s and by extension Council too. Clearly, both the City of Launceston and the QVMAG have obligations here and no amount of ‘history smoothing’ will absolve either.

Moreover, there are reports that the QVMAG has in its collection still a plaster cast of a petroglyph taken from Preminghana quite likely circa 1930.

Why is this not being discussed or has it – they?– been destroyed in some history sanitising process?

In the vernacular, it’s ‘FESS UP TIME’ and ‘fence mending time’ down at Launceston’s Town Hall!

Launcestonians are diminished by the city’s governance’s and ‘cultural custodians’ recalcitrance and it is time that they ought not be.

With respect,

Ray Norman

OPEN LETTER TO THE CITY OF LAUNCESTON''S MAYOR

Dear Mayor van Zetten and Councillors,  

You are quite probably unaware of my current research focus which serendipitously keeps on bringing the CULTURALlandscaping at the confluence of two fresh water river systems and an estuary at kanamaluka Tamar ponrabbel – upon which Launceston is situated. You will however be aware of the increasing volume of various ‘disgruntled local activists’ calling for ‘the river to be cleaned up’.  

Concerningly, most of commentary seems to be pointing to the advocacy of a HEROICengineering ‘solution’.  All that I’ve noted you saying, albeit as subtext and quite often, is that this would be expensive and by extension you seem to be asking, and quite rightly, who will pay and for what? You are so right in taking this approach.

Because this unproductive, and largely ill informed, discourse falls into my lap so to speak, it is increasingly clear that there are quite a few ‘commentators’ with something to say, albeit from differing perspectives. All of them have concerns, all of whom have something to offer and all need to be heard. All together they are member of various layers of ‘the river’s Community of Ownership and Interest (COI)’. 

To remind you, a COI is an all-inclusive collective/community of people, individuals and groups, who in many ways have multi layered relationships with a place or cultural landscape – e.g. roads, schools, a community service, a landscape – SEE [LINK]. It is neither feasible nor appropriate to rank these commentaries despite the typical knee-jerk reaction to do so. 

Therefore, I suggest that it is increasingly clear that ‘the matter’ is essentially a cultural issue despite the city’s so-called ‘cultural strategy’ looking as it is, almost everywhere else for relevance. However, it is a cultural matter: 

• Not exclusively a matter of ‘science’; 

• Not exclusively a matter to do with ‘the environment’; 

• Not exclusively a matter of ‘health’ – environmental or human; 

• Not exclusively a matter of ‘engineering’ or even HERORICengineering; 

• Not exclusively a matter of ‘economics’; 

• Nor a political issue and certainly not exclusively in the political arena; albeit that none of these issues can be put aside in the exercise of ‘placemaking’ – the actual issue that clearly seems to be driving the ‘debate is cultural’ – and in the end, it’s at the crux of the matter. 

The kanamaluka Tamar ponrabbel ‘debate’ is to do with ‘the nasty mud’, the one that’s currently in play and it is the one that is culturally driven – or put another way, largely to do with aesthetics. Nevertheless, one consideration does not by itself outweigh all, or any of, the others. 

That said, the matter of the whole river cum estuary system’s pollution is a CULTURALlandscaping issue. It has been suggested that there are upwards of 20plus communities quite deliberately and mindlessly flushing their sewerage into ‘the catchment’ – the environment(!) – and that expresses itself very clearly in the confluence of the waterways. So, among the mix of ‘concerns and considerations’ it seems quite clear that incrementally increasing the disposal of human and animal waste ‘to the environment’ – via the waterways – for over two centuries now has, has had, and will have, increasingly concerning outcomes that will impact heavily on ‘placedness’ and the amenity of ‘place’. 

What way forward? 

I raise this matter with you again, and against the background of yourself, and on multiple occasions, being a blatantly antagonistic towards the very concept of ‘participatory democracy’ [LINK]  

You have shown your disinclination to engage with such strategies in public, and significantly on the record in open Council meetings and on a number of occasions. 

Nevertheless, with that said, I raise the issue again, and here, given that ‘Citizen’s Juries/Assemblies’ have consistently been proven to be productive elsewhere – and on multiple occasions. Here, in regard to the kanamaluka Tamar ponrabbel CULTURALlandscape, given the diversity of, and the scale of, the COI, the case for empanelling a ‘Citizen’s Jury/Assembly’ appears to be something more than strong. I suggest that there is compelling evidence that it a strategy most likely win community support given that it offers ‘all voices’ an equal opportunity to be heard in the context of deliberation rather than debate! 

I now put this openly to you now, in as much as, ‘the commentary’ in the press, social media and elsewhere is out there pointlessly looking for a SILVERbullet – or claiming to have one available. Seemingly, ‘the players’ all point to Launceston’s city council and likewise assert that  . While that might be misguided, nonetheless, Launceston might well take the lead in engaging with the kanamaluka Tamar ponrabbel CULTURALlandscape’s COI, the State and Federal governments and the various regional jurisdictions in regard to a more inclusive outcome. 

Most of all, the important and impressive work of NRM-TEER [LINK] needs to be much better known and more openly acknowledged. I say so, given the careful, diligent and mindful attention this group has to its work in regard to ‘the health of the river’ albeit that it has not received, and clearly is not receiving, the appropriate recognition due to the group and the individuals within it.

Albeit that Citizens’ Juries have no legislative or regulatory authority, strategically, they have amassed a rather impressive record of creditability and a proven track record in regard to delivering appropriate outcomes where other strategies have not delivered. 

I look forward to your considered response given all that is at risk relative to the confluence of waterways upon which the City of Launceston is located. 

Yours sincerely, 

 Ray Norman 

Independent Researcher, Cultural Geographer & Cultural Producer

 

TO ENLARGE CLICK ON AN IMAGE

THE CREDIBILITY OF PLACEMAKING DECISIONS IN THE CITY OF LAUNCESTON

GO TO 

https://www.tec.tas.gov.au/Local_Government_Elections/LocalGovernmentElections2018/results/LauncestonCity/index.html

The graphic above is  here to serve as references for the propositions I am about to present relative to placemaking and urban development in a 'place' like the City of Launceston. The class of decision making on display is very concerning given the circumstances of the times. The hubris and arrogance on display would be an issue at any time but right now with the evidence of Climate Change becoming more and more concerning and the COVID-19 Crisis increasingly looking like it will linger for a very long time one has to wonder what is informing decision making in Launceston.

ELECTED REPRESENTATION

The  Winston S. Churchill quote “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others” that gets an airing anytime that the quality of democratic decision making is challenged. Well it turns out that Launceston is a great place to begin to debunk democracy in a local governance context.

It turns out that in Launceston at least what passes for democratic representation is anything but 'elected representation' when push comes to shove looks a lot more  like a 'two up game' or a 'chook raffle' at the bottom pub.

Just look at the graphic above.

In looking at take the following into account:

• Less than 50% of the eligible electorate vote;  and

• In order to win a quota of votes to get on Council you only need to win something less than 16% of that 50%; and

•  It turns out that the Mayor with 3 Quotas only needed to garner something less than 10% of the eligible voters' first preference votes; and

• It turns out that Deputy Mayor won his place with just over 1ooo first prefenence votes and well short of va Quota; and

• It turns out that two other Councillors won just over 1000 first preference votes and less than a Quota; and

• All other Councillors won onn significantly less than a 1000 first preference votes; and

• One Councillor has as few as 36i first preference votes; and

the silliness of 'elected representation' goes on from there.

Interesting, in a jurisdiction near Launceston there is a Councillor who kind of asserts the Churchill position' and who will tell you over and over that's the way it is – and by implication 'get over it'. Maybe I'm verballing the good Councillor but I do not think so and one might turn over any number of rocks in local politics to find a 'Conga Line of Soulmates'. All arguably clinging to their encumbancy for any number of reasons.

So, let's just put the veracity of elected representation in local governance aside. In fact you could get an equally credible outcome in a two up ring or by any other version of a 'game of chance'. The trouble is that in the ring somewhere there are players with double headed pennies. 

And the graphic below is more to do with 'marketing' than the real life on the ground experiences of ratepayers and residents when the chips are down.

A Truly Independent and Multi-dimensional Audit relative to the Governance and Operational Accountability of the City of Launceston

Dear Minister Shelton, Attorney General and Auditor General, 

i write to draw your attention to the growing disquiet in the Launceston Municipality generally in regard to the potentially dire financial circumstances the city, and the municipality in general. faces as a consequence the current and pending economic downturn. 

Looking ahead, the people contacting me are particularly concerned about the impact that this current crisis is likely to have upon the long term wellbeing of ratepayers and residents – the business community, service providers, et al – relative to planning processes, service provision and the changed and changing circumstances in the city, the region and in fact, Tasmania generally. .

Of immediate concern is the way the City of Launceston Council is currently managing the financial collateral damage flowing from the COVID-19 Crisis and the ways that is increasingly becoming evident. 

The fiscal measures in train, and in prospect, have all the characteristics of ad hoc decision making with ratepayers and residents looking forward to ominous outcomes across the board in an environment of discretionary transparency and non-mandatory accountability. 

I and people contacting me, understand that the City of Launceston is proposing to appoint an auditor to investigate and report on Council’s current grants program after the process in train is completed. 

I also understand that the CEO is proposing that he, rather than Council’s elected representatives, appoint the auditor who apparently will be briefed by him and consequently report to him in isolation from the Councillors. By extension, ratepayers and residents, the people who are required to carry the financial and social burdens, will essentially excluded from the process if this were to be the case. 

I enthusiastically endorse the concept that there should be an audit of the City of Launceston’s operational outcomes. 

Furthermore, I believe that such an audit needs to be undertaken independently, with the terms of reference determined at arm’s length from the Council’s operation imperatives and be undertaken in two phases: 

• Phase one, focused of Council’s response to the  brought on by the COVID-19 Crisis; 

• Phase two, focused on the fiscal realities of the municipality’s economies and the long term economic sustainability of Council operations within the municipality. 

Phase one, needs to be reported on early in the audit process and Phase two needs to be a more thorough investigation albeit conducted within an appropriate timeframe. 

Against this background, I request that the auditor be: 

• Recruited commissioned and appointed by Council in collaboration with the Department of Premier and Cabinet;

• Briefed by Council in collaboration with the State Government in an open and transparent process at an ordinary meeting of Council;

• Briefed to undertake a forensic audit and specifically in regard to Council’s capital works projects such as Riverbend Park, Quadrant Mall, Civic Square and the Brisbane Street Mall; 

• Briefed to undertake a forensic audit and specifically in regard to Council’s governance and management of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery; 

• Briefed to investigate the application of and implementation of Section 62 Tasmania’s Local Government Act 1993 by the General Manager/Chief Executive Officer; 

• Briefed to investigate Council’s strategic purpose in regard to the acquisition of the property known as the ‘Birchalls building’ – 118 -122 Brisbane Street Launceston. 

•  Briefed to report to Council in an open and transparent process at ordinary meetings of Council. 

I respectfully request that you use your authority to do whatever is necessary to ensure that that an appropriate audit is implemented in a timely way in order to facilitate better planning in the context of the city’s current circumstances and economic outlook looking forward. 

Furthermore, I ask this given that I have become increasingly aware that in regard to ‘fiscal matters’ there is a growing number of people who no longer “trust the authorities” and this is a matter that requires urgent attention given all that is at stake. 

Yours sincerely,

Ray Norman

OPEN LETTER COUNCIL AUDIT

Copy the text below, modify it if you wish and email your concerns to Minister Shelton and others via

• eMAIL Shelton, Minister (DPaC) Minister.Shelton@dpac.tas.gov.au 
• CC Elise Archer MP elise.archer@parliament.tas.gov.au ... Auditor General [Tas] admin@audit.tas.gov.au

OR via post to:

• Department of Premier & Cabinet
• ATTN: Minister for Local Govt, Attorney General and Auditor General
• C/- 5 Murray St, Hobart TAS 7000
  DRAFT

Dear Minister, Attorney General and Auditor General, 

We write to draw your attention to the growing disquiet in the Launceston Municipality generally in regard to the potentially dire financial circumstances the city, and the municipality in general. faces as a consequence the current and pending economic downturn. 

Looking ahead, we are particularly concerned about the impact that this current crisis is likely to have upon the long term wellbeing of ratepayers and residents – the business community, service providers, et al – relative to planning processes, service provision and the changed and changing circumstances in the city, the region and in fact, Tasmania generally. .

Of immediate concern is the way the City of Launceston Council is currently managing the financial collateral damage flowing from the COVID-19 Crisis and the ways that is increasingly becoming evident. 

The fiscal measures in train, and in prospect, have all the characteristics of ad hoc decision making with ratepayers and residents looking forward to ominous outcomes across the board in an environment of discretionary transparency and non-mandatory accountability. 

We understand that the City of Launceston is proposing to appoint an auditor to investigate and report on Council’s current grants program after the process in train is completed. 

We also understand that the CEO is proposing that he, rather than Council’s elected representatives, appoint the auditor who apparently will be briefed by him and consequently report to him in isolation from the Councillors. By extension, ratepayers and residents, the people who are required to carry the financial and social burdens, will essentially excluded from the process if this were to be the case. 

We enthusiastically endorse the concept that there should be an audit of the City of Launceston’s operational outcomes. 

Furthermore, we believe that such an audit needs to be undertaken independently, with the terms of reference determined at arm’s length from the Council’s operation imperatives and be undertaken in two phases: 
• Phase one, focused of Council’s response to the ‘economic disruption’ brought on by the COVID-19 Crisis; 
• Phase two, focused on the fiscal realities of the municipality’s economies and the long term economic sustainability of Council operations within the municipality. 

Phase one, needs to be reported on early in the audit process and 
Phase two needs to be a more thorough investigation albeit conducted within an appropriate timeframe. 


Against this background, we request that the auditor be:
• Recruited commissioned and appointed by Council in collaboration;
• Briefed by Council in collaboration with the State Government in an open and transparent process at an ordinary meeting of Council;
• Briefed to undertake a forensic audit and specifically in regard to Council’s capital works projects such as Riverbend Park, Quadrant Mall, Civic Square and the Brisbane Street Mall;
• Briefed to investigate the application of and implementation of Section 62 Tasmania’s Local Government Act 1993 by the General Manager/Chief Executive Officer;
• Briefed to investigate the relationships between governance and management relative to the QVMAG and the trust invested in the institution.
• Briefed to investigate Council’s strategic purpose in regard to the acquisition of the property known as the ‘Birchalls building’ – 118 -122 Brisbane Street Launceston.
•  Briefed to report to Council in an open and transparent process at ordinary meetings of Council.

We respectfully request that you use your authority to do whatever is necessary to ensure that that an appropriate audit is implemented in a timely way in order to facilitate better planning in the context of the city’s current circumstances and economic outlook looking forward.

Furthermore, we ask this given that we are increasingly aware that in regard to ‘fiscal matters’ there is a growing number of people who no longer “trust the authorities” and this is a matter that requires urgent attention given all that is at stake.

Yours sincerely