PILOT POST

.

Cr. Peter Keareney seems to be operating from a position that goes something like, 'I cannot see any breakages, so it's not broken, let's just keep on keeping on like we always have .... a bit like British Paints – well that sort of thing.  

And, the compliant press can always be trusted to run this sort of argument since nobody is advocating upturning the apple cart.

Councillor Kearney, and the 'status-quoists' he speaks for and with, apparently entertain the notion that an Act devised in 1993 to regulate civic behaviours worked when it was invoked, has worked well enough since and is working well enough now, and by extension will work way into the future. So, it definitely doesn't need to be changed. Well, it turns out that this proposition is quite informative. The serial and surreal applications of Sections 62 & 65 in that Act needs to be called out for starters.

This 'status quo' proposition demands that we all look away while the 'political class' get on with things. If that demands discretionary accountability and flexible transparency, so be it – it seems. After all that's why Section 62  Clause 2 of Tasmania's Local Govt. Act is there. Isn't it?

The idea that Tasmania cannot afford 29 councils has a great deal of merit, and especially so given that the councils range in size between less than 1,000 residents to over 65,000 residents. Without skirting around the issue, Tasmania, with about half a million people actually lacks sufficient talent to run 29 councils. Then there is the issue of expertise, the breadth of experience and even the qualifications required to devise 21st Century strategies and policiesand then be equipped to implement them via 29 councils. 

Among the many comparisons drawn, Tasmania has been equated with two largish Sydney or Melbourne suburbs. Okay, that is not entirely fair but it does set the scene quite well if you have'lived away' and somewhere where the cut and thrust of governance is played out in somewhat more accountable ways. Right now, Tasmania could profitably take a close look at Queensland for guidance in local government reform. A Brisbane ratepayer is likely to tell you that they have "the most transparent local governance in the world" and delinquent mayors have been sacked, a council too, and so on.

A cursory survey of the aldermen and councillors in 'Tassie' will demonstrate a different story in regard to 'accountability' – and quite quickly. After the 'political class' comes 'the salaried officers' and any developer will tell you just how uneven their skill sets are across Tasmania even if by-and-large they are much better equipped than their political masters – and its assumed that they are under Section 65 of the Act. It is little wonder that the odd 'GM' has been sprung calling out 'the politicians' while raking in the largess ratepayers are conscripted to pay them. What a lazy business model.  All this is resplendent as it is with an in-built success factor.

Then Councillor Kearney in The Examiner, speaking it seems on behalf of all the 'status-quoists', and some elected representatives, proffers the idea that a council is like a business. I'm sorry, that's nonsense, utter nonsense. A council's purpose for the information of the deluded is: 

•      to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community; 

•      to represent and promote the interests of the community; 

•      to provide for the peace, order and good government of a municipal area.

A council is not there to carry out a specific activity with an objective of making a profit. Councils exist to deliver services – ideally at the least cost to their constituents.

Comparing a council with a business is a bit like saying a banana is much the same as an apple. Yes, they're both fruit but after that their differences are much more significant than the similarities.

Ideally, the 1993 Tasmanian Local Govt. model, the one the 'status-quoists' favour, the one that's broken, is the very one that needs to be replaced with a representational structure that is fit-for-purpose in a 21st Century context – like right now for instance. 

The 'status-quoists' can cherry-pick less than a handful of councils –interestingly one being one that Councillor Kearney serves on – as exemplars of appropriate representational governance. They do so, apparently, to defend the status quo. If they, indeed if we, had been looking we might have discovered that 'the quo' has lost its status long ago along with any gloss it might have had – and even that was more a mirage than a fact.

If the victims, and yes "victim" is used advisedly, of others in the State hold other views 'status-quoists' should not be too surprised. It is very clear that there are way, way too many councillors and aldermen occupying far too many seats for too little purpose other than perhaps to collect their allowances. 

If you listen hard you'll be able to hear them all bleat like so many poddy-calves as their access to'the teat' is threatened. It's a real worry if privileges might yet be withdrawn to make way for transparent accountability – and a fresher model. Yes, yes, I'm dreaming but there you go.

Far from everything being okay, really, Local Govt. in Tasmania is way passed its use-by-date as would be a month-old bottle of milk. Like so many of the defenders of the faith, the 'status-quoists', are now throwing smoke bombs and flashing their mirrors all over the place. Nonetheless, the 'status-quoists' out there would serve their communities much better if they simply got out of the road. 

Local Govt. in Tasmania is kaput, buggered, threadbare, stuffed, defunct, worn-out, in tatters,shabby, whatever. It's also running out of time and very low on credibility. 'Status-quoists' divining 'the right way ahead' is dumb and oxymoronic. It is a bit like telling someone to hold their horses while we take our time. Some are no longer ready for that.

Just saying, that sort of thing looks a tad hollow. It is more so, given that a lot of dead heads seem to be hanging on in the bleakness even if it does mean less flowers, fewer green shoots and not enough fruit ahead.

Sorry about the clichés but as it turns out this is a case of clichés at 25 paces and they started it. It goes with the territory. Someone, somewhere said that "the status quo lends itself to destruction".

Ray Norman 

first posted LCC News

OPEN LETTER TO UTAS

  PILOT POST.  Open letter to the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, and the Council of the University of Tasmania.

Dear Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and Members of Council,

As you watch and re-watch the video footage of the catastrophic floods and the aftermath in and around Hobart, and as you are forced to address the problems and the very real risk to life arising from the flood events at the Sandy Bay campus of the University of Tasmania, including the dramatic rescue of the security officer trapped in a room with the rising waters, consider the implications should, and when, such events occur at Inveresk, Launceston.
After you review the footage of water flowing down a long hallway where people are still present, of ruined Law Library books washed out onto the grass, of the height reached by flood water and the resulting damage to computers in the Engineering department and the emotional responses of staff and students, and after you clean up and prepare to assess the damage and costs, it is incumbent upon you to thoroughly examine the following serious matters in relation to the University’s Northern campus.

The flood catastrophe in Hobart and the flooding and damage at the Sandy Bay Campus have been described as unprecedented. In stark contrast, flooding of Inveresk, the planned relocation site of the University’s Launceston campus is not unprecedented. Inveresk is a tidal flat that sits 1.5 metres below high level, the only such suburb in Australia. It has been subject to serious flooding in the past. More than half of the length of its boundary is tidal estuarine frontage. Although it is bordered by flood levees, these levees require constant maintenance, levees are never guaranteed to protect an area from flood inundation, and this is becoming increasingly so in the era of climate change and rising sea levels.

Climate change, rising sea temperatures and rising sea levels are already affecting the North Esk Estuary. Sea temperatures along Tasmania’s East Coast have risen 2 degrees in recent years. The tidal range along the north coast near the mouth of the Tamar River is approximately 3 metres. The tidal range in Launceston is around 4 metres, higher during king tides, and the water table rises with the tides. While sea-level rise can be calculated along the coast, it is not yet known what the effects will be on the greater tidal range or the water table at Launceston or along the North Esk Estuary which extends for some ten kilometres beyond the Inveresk Precinct. So not only is the North Esk River/Estuary subject to flood waters it is also subject to the affect of tides and sea level rises. In this era of climate change that should be a sobering thought to any thinking person.

The Inveresk area is zoned as Flood Inundation Zone and as such is subject to the Flood Inundation Code of the Launceston Interim Planning Scheme. …? The deliberate intention of the Flood Code was to permanently limit development in the flood plain (tidal flat), irrespective of any flood protection system or the levees. The Code was mandated by Treasury to protect the State from any future damage claim. Moreover, it should not be forgotten, that the modelling done in 2006-7 and that resulted in the formulation of the Code, never considered climate change. As sea temperatures rise (witness the two degree rise already in sea temperatures off Tasmania’s East Coast), as sea levels rise and as the number and intensity of climate events - such as that experienced across Tasmania in June 2016 and now in Hobart – increase, rainfall intensities are predicted to increase by 20 percent. Consequently, the 1:200 AEP (a one in 200 year event) based on the 2007 modelling, may in fact be only 1:60 AEP (a one in sixty year event) Such conditions are already being taken into account in the Netherlands and North Germany, where flood/tidal water management and levees (dykes) have been a way of life for many hundreds of years and I suggest you examine the current trends in flood risk mitigation in these countries.

During periods of high rainfall and flood warnings, water in what is one of the longest straight stretches of the North Esk River/Estuary rushes headlong in a direct line towards the Inveresk Precinct with the full combined force of the ebb tide and flood waters - twice daily. Every time there is a flood emergency for Launceston, Inveresk and, depending on the severity of the flooding expected, parts of Invermay, need to be evacuated. The dangers of power failures, pump failures, storm water and sewerage overflows, drinking water contamination and resulting loss of essential services are always present. In around 2011-2012 before the construction of the student accommodation there, the Inveresk precinct, including all the campus buildings, was evacuated at a monetary and time cost to the University.
These factors are all taken into account by the Insurance industry and already prior to/ as early as 2010-2012 resulted in large/trebling increases in insurance premiums across the whole Inveresk suburb.

In June 2016, the Inveresk Precinct, along with the entire suburb of Inveresk and most of Invermay was evacuated at great distress and at great cost and effort by residents and emergency services. Emergency personnel were working and preparing for days beforehand. The two days prior to the peak flood, and particularly the day of the flood traffic and evacuation activity across Inveresk and beyond were chaotic with lengthy traffic jams. All residents of Inveresk evacuated. (The process so distressed one elderly lady, who, although she lived on higher ground, never returned to her home and instead ended up in a nursing home.) With the early evening installation of flood gates across the Charles Street bridge – a highway, usually Northern Tasmania’s busiest traffic thoroughfare/intersection – and of the five bridges across the flood plain section of the North Esk River only one remained open. Even half of this bridge, Tamar Street (Victoria) bridge, was closed with only two lanes open. SES crews and police worked on into the night door-knocking Invermay residences encouraging even those living on higher ground to leave their homes. Evacuating the student accommodation added ten percent to the workload of the SES. The student population of that accommodation was later described by a senior emergency official as ‘a vulnerable population’ due to lack of own vehicles/transport and lack of available family support. In addition, the evacuation of its Inveresk campus cost the University $40,000. Meanwhile, ironically, the Newnham campus, safe on high ground with its facilities and infrastructure, was one of the city’s two flood evacuation centres.
While city and university officials held their breath for several hours during the early evening and well into the early hours of the next morning that the levees would hold (they were leaking in several sections) or that flood water would not over-top them, the relocation proponents appeared to have simply breathed a sigh of relief, continue in denial and continue to ignore the warnings.

Events at the Sandy Bay campus should be heeded as further warning about the damage that can be caused by flood waters. Are you, Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and Members of the University Council, aware of the risks and dangers associated with Inveresk site? Are you aware that insurance industry research provides some of the best indicators of risk assessment as they apply to the Inveresk district? Are you aware that while events in Hobart and at Sandy Bay campus were ‘unprecedented’ and ‘catastrophic’, and that while the Sandy Bay campus is above sea level, Inveresk sits below high tide level.? Even in times of moderately heavy rain, storm water and sewerage spills can, and do, occur at any time across Inveresk and the university’s nominated relocation site. For example, such occurrences have previously affected the Museum’s conservation department and the School of Architecture.

Given all the above, are you prepared to dismiss the clear evidence before you of the inevitable risks inherent with the Inveresk site? Are you prepared to dismiss international best practice in flood management, sustainability and risk mitigation and thereby jeopardise the national/international reputation of the University of Tasmania? Are you prepared to deny the climate change effects on the North Esk Estuary and continue to push the campus relocation from the safety and security of the existing Newnham campus with its purpose-built facilities and infrastructure to the tidal flat /flood inundation zone?

Are you prepared to address the moral and ethical issues associated with increasing the risks and placing added pressure on emergency service workers, and placing lives at risk. On behalf of concerned ratepayers and residents of Launceston, the Tamar Valley and Northern Tasmania, and staff and students of Utas, I ask you to reverse the relocation plan with its misrepresentations and outrageous cost, which will exceed the stated $200 million, and to return to the original fully researched 2007-2017 Master Plan plan for the refurbishment of the Newnham campus for the cost of $59 million.

Yours faithfully,

Basil Fitch,
14 May 2018

WATCH THIS SPACE

AND

START WRITING!!