BIRCHALLS LETTERS

 

QVMAG LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 

Click on the image to enlarge

In today’s letters there is a timely letter from Kyle Barrett and she is kind of right in what she has to say. However, on the QVMAG there is so, so, much ill-informed commentary about.

Recently Ian Goninon wrote saying that "You've got to run some things at a loss” Well NO, the QVMAG is a Council COST CENTRE, and they are operated within a set budget to achieve Key Performance Indicators.  Cost Centres are an investment!

The QVMAG is unsustainable because arguably it isn’t delivering the 21st C ‘culture cum social dividends' it should / could commensurate with the multiple millions of dollars invested by ratepayers. It could and it should.

If a young person (5 to 25) is curious about almost anything they’ll reach for their smartphone rather than visit a museum. Museum staff do that too, but that’s not what a 21st C cultural cum social museum curator should be doing. 

They’re there to develop new and better understandings

SECTION 65 of the Local Govt Act say that Council GMs / CEOs must “guarantee" that Councillors make their decisions based on expert advice. Launceston has had a conga line of GMs / CEOs who couldn’t / didn’t do that for the QVMAG – sadly. 

Therefore, the status quo pertains and the people at Town Hall that ratepayers pay to deliver services commensurate with their rates are arguably failing to deliver on their Key Performance Indicators.

The expertise is out there among the ratepayers, and it is just the case that nobody at Town Hall wants to admit that for fear of being held accountable or seen not to be delivering expertise commensurate with their arguably over-blown salaries.

Ray Norman

Launceston

LINK TO ANOTHER LETTER ... CLICK HERE 

\]

LETTER TO THE MINISTER

 

Minister,

Social media alerts the people of lutruwita / Tasmania to the mindless and totally unnecessary culling of swans scheduled for 11-12 October at a private property near Ross.

The killing of swans is only allowed under a 'property protection permit’ and apparently it is within your bailiwick to stop this mindless debauchery right now.

Black swans form monogamous pair bonds and raise their young together. The killing of swans at any time is abhorrent and completely unnecessary. The killing of swans in the breeding season, when they have young flightless cygnets is beyond disgusting. Moreover, it is diminishing behaviour!

Young swans don't take flight until they are 4-6 months of age. This is why the killing (shooting) has been scheduled for October - the parents won't fly away and leave their young.

We are sure that you as soon as you nare aware of the facts here you will be as horrified as so many people are.

You as Minister are responsible and you should examine your conscience very carefully. I write to you now and tell you of the volley and dystopia that I and many others think about the beautiful black swans you are seemingly allowing to be slaughtered for no good purpose under the circumstances.

The shooting of swans has no social license. So, let's stop this ill-informed cull!

For further information and context see https://tktt7250.blogspot.com/p/kaylarunya.html

Regards,

Ray Norman

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

VIDEO ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kjo6gPV4nk

 I have become very aware of the contributions ELSEWHEREpeople. make to the City of Launceston's and indeed Tasmanian’s, social and cultural wellbeing.

Without these people in our community our healthcare system, and much, much more, would be in a very sorry state.  Largely, these people’s contribution to each and everyone’s wellbeing is generally unacknowledged and sadly it’s unappreciated too.

Many of these people are with us on visas that enable them to work with us to keeping our health services operational and indeed functional. If they were not here, generally, our wellbeing would be severely compromised. 

In fact, our healthcare system would fail to function.

Somewhat belatedly, we have come to an understanding that we need to acknowledge the First Tasmanians, the lutruwita’s palawa/pakana people, and it has been revealed that the sky didn’t fall in. So, in much the same way our  ELSEWHEREpeople might be overtly acknowledged as well.

Regarding them simply as ‘the hired help’ is an obscenity and it is the kind of ‘rankism’ that comes with sexism, ageism, ableism, bullying, etc. 

We need to do much better and overtly acknowledge 

ELSEWHEREpeople for their citizenship and the contributions they make to not only our economy but also our cultural realities.

Ray Norman

Launceston

CAN THE LOCAL, STATE, & FEDERAL GOVTS JOIN THE DOTS?

Click here for more information

Tasmania's Housing First policy, part of the Tasmanian Housing Strategy, aims to end primary homelessness by providing permanent housing and person-centred support without requiring individuals to address issues like addiction or mental health first. This person-centred approach provides open-ended, flexible support tailored to individual needs, with a focus on building trust and empowering choice. The policy is intended to be a foundational part of the state's strategy to achieve functional zero homelessness. .... Read more here

LAUNCESTON FLOODS

Click on image to enlarge

VIDEO -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slnw7yIkTi4

HOSPITAL EXPERIENCE

 

Despite the Tasmanian Government’s warped priorities not to mention its ham-fisted and somewhat dystopian efforts in managing the State’s public health system, hospitals do what needs to be done despite everything.

 

The carers at Launceston General Hospital deliver exemplary service and care but, they themselves deserve better care and conditions – sadly, that's all too evident.

 

Having been involved in an accident, I was a grateful recipient of the hospital’s emergency and ongoing care for two weeks.  The paramedic’s professionalism, along with the medical and nursing staff’s care, was outstanding.

 

Launcestonians are indeed well served despite the State government’s up to now warped priorities. The surreal and serial failures of three successive Ministers for Health is telling. So, let’s hope that Minister Archer can do what her predecessors did not, could not or would not do. 

 

The hospital’s carers are stretched to their limits all too often. Nonetheless, they keep on keeping on. Evidently, once you start out as a career carer, you just can't stop.

 

A smile, a patient ear, an acknowledgement, and the smallest act of caring, comes as powerful medicine. The potential to heal in all this turns lives around. 

 

Ray Norman

Launceston

TWO LETTERS FROM RON

 

Bargain Gift

Strange that allowing our Council's decisions into the public domain is considered a malicious act by CEO Sam Johnston, while the very people who pay your salary consider this as opening up our Council to truth and transparency, two ideals that are sadly lacking in our society these times.

 Most of the area surrounding and including York Park Stadium has been given away, now it seems a part of Brisbane St Mall will follow suit.

I expect it's easy to give away something you haven't paid for personally, no skin off your nose or pay packet, eh!

Ron Baines, Kings Meadows

Building Blocks

The Victorian Government is looking at old industrial land, golf courses, race tracks and surplus university sites e.g. Newnham campus in Launceston.

 These are being targeted for the most housing builds and will be fast tracked under new government changes.

UTAS deliberately let our Newnham campus run down by not maintaining the buildings so they had an excuse to spend millions of dollars of government money to move to an area less than half the size of Newnham campus.

So! Should they bulldoze Newnham campus and build houses?

Or give it some TLC and turn it back into a great and useful site?

Could it perhaps be used for homeless people?

Surely our academics could come up with imaginations and ideas. After all aren't they the clever ones?

Ron Baines, Kings Meadows

 

OPEN LETTER: Director Local Govt Tasmania

Thank you for your correspondence in response to a series of sequenced correspondence with Launceston's General Manager (GM), your Minster and subsequently by extension to yourself as Director of Local Government. Along the way various misconceptions have become embedded in the correspondence that I  believe is worth the time to address.

Firstly, I am not at all surprised that you might have responded as you have and in a kind of a way it was anticipated – and indeed quite anticipatable. However: 

• That it appears as though you and the GM's correspondence might be characterized as 'patronising' is disappointing.

• That it appears that both yourself and the General Manager might regard me as some kind sole operator cum 'lone antagonist' is a serious misunderstanding (misrepresentation?) of the facts and contrary to the evidence.

• That it appears as though, speculatively at least, you might uphold a position where the advocacy of ideas and/or concepts plus the presentation of evidence contrary bureaucratically convenient might be stifled and/or summarily shut-down on the bureaucratic and discretionary whim of a GM is untenable.

• That it seems that a council should use and/or fund whatever mechanism of obfuscation to deflect criticism and/or suppress evidence of 'inconvenient truths' is counterproductive and inappropriate  if not irregular.

• That it seems that the numbers of emails that I have, or anyone might yet, direct to Council might be deemed by a GM as "unreasonable and/or inappropriate" is in one sense bemusing, in another inappropriate in itself and beyond that a denial of natural justice;

• That it is open to speculation that there is an inference from your stated position that drawing weaknesses and inadequacies; flaws, mistakes and inaccuracies;  maladministration and possible misdemeanors, to Council's attention for attention/consideration/action is unwarranted and unacceptable to say the very least;

• That speculatively at least, that as a 'public servant' one should attempt to mitigate against 'the public', and the likes of constituents/researchers such as myself, engaging in a legitimate critical discourse, albeit at times vigorous and robust, is in my view is untenable in the absence of truly transparent and functional mechanisms to hold Local Govt. to account at any level.

• That in Tasmania the lack of an independent local press means that constituencies are constrained in in initiating independent critical discourses and/or directly engaging in incisive and productive criticism and critique relative placescaping and placemaking [LINK 2] – the primary function of Local Govt.– is more than lamentable.

• That it appears on the evidence a GM, under the provisions of SECTIONS 62 & 65 of the Local Govt. Act, may functionally deem at her/his discretion that advice, that is any advice across the spectrum of human activity and understanding, is appropriately 'expert' is troubling.

That against this background in Tasmania, functionally, Communities of Ownership & Interest for the most part lack the necessary opportunities and mechanisms to hold a Council and/or its officers to account in a meaningful way, and it is concerning. Moreover, it is non-trivial that this be the case and the layer of governance that conscripts its recurrent funding from a constituency can shape it without functional accountability, let alone gain information except at the discretion of an unelected, unrepresentative 'manager'. 

That an unrepresentative 'council functionary' can summarily and blatantly discriminate against a constituent is unconscionable. That there is no 'code of conduct' disciplinary action that can be taken speaks somewhat loudly of the inadequacy of Local Govt. legislation.

However, as Gandhi said "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."

DPG