REPRESENTATION

PLEASE CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

This proposal to hand the 'community asset' that York Park is, over to some new and unproven entity, Stadiums Tasmania, must be challenged and from various perspectives. 

Firstly, it has to be said that timing and its consequences has to be called out for its cynical Machiavellism – albeit quite, quite detectable. For whatever reason that this might be the case, it is both concerning and alarming in the context of 'local governance'. Moreover, that this 'initiative' essentIally came about on the part of the CEO, and 'management'. 

Plus it comes to light as the community debate warms up relative to the extraordinary expenditure being talked up in regard to the proposed Mac Point Stadium in Hobart.   

Not so coincidentally, the initiative came before the newly elected Council at the cusp of 'holiday season' with its next step set for its progress forward being for 'OBJECTIONS' called for by January 21 2023 and with Council itself meeting four days later on January 25 to consider objections. 

As Niccolò Machiavelli, once said, “everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.”

With the ethics to one side, there comes the question of 'equity'. For decade upon decade Launceston's ratepayers have invested in a place that they knew and named York Park albeit that its nomenclature changed with various machinations ton do with marketing imperatives. Often in doing so Launcestonians have forgone other aspirations relative to the provision of amenities and services in the municipality. 

At times the expenditure in a financial year has been many millions of dollars for 'capital works' quite aside from the recurrent on-costs. All this 'work' was funded from the 'public purse' at the expense of other priorities.

More than occasionally other venues, facilities and activities went begging for the want of scarce dollars. Even handedness has not been a feature in the prioritisation in the provision of 'resources' at York nPark and here somehow the FOOTYtragics have held sway around the decision making table at Town Hall.

To this point in time York Park has been 'managed' as a COST CENTRE and one where  the traditional imperatives and KPIs of such centres didn't actually apply – and arguably do not apply. Nevertheless, this 'elitist recreation ground' has been managed as a cost centre and like all such centres it has reached a point where eventually 'enough is enough in a fiscal context'. 

There has never been an attempt to manage the York Park facility as a 'community cultural enterprise' with self-sustenance figuring in it's KPIs and with the benefits due to a Community of Ownership and Interest front of mind. It is not that it cannot be done, it is just the case that it has never been either attempted or contemplated.

Clearly, 'York Park's placedness' has not actually figured in the 'facility's' management and likewise transparent fiscal accountability has been serially avoided given that once 'the numbers' are known, much of the expenditure could be seen as 'inexplicable and extravagant' – and thus ratepayers, stakeholders, citizen investors, politicians are likely to be exercised. 

Understandably perhaps, 'management' now wishes to be rid of this often called 'non-core-operation' in the light of deeming itself/themselves unwilling, or perhaps unable, to deliver on a reimagined 'community cultural enterprise' with its attendant KPIs and expected deliverables. The task of building one from the ground up on the Cost Centre's legacy seems to be all too daunting.

All this is backgrounded by the 'sport phenomena' that in turn means that 'sports business' is one of Australia's most lucrative business operations. The 'profits' made are boundless and legendary.

THE STATUS AND VALUE OF THE FACILITY CUM ASSET

The unelected Town Hall operatives advise that their advice is that 'dollar-wise' the land and the infrastructure on it, and that the City of Launceston Council proposes to transfer/gift to Stadiums Tasmania can be estimated. Whatever, it is an asset with an estimated fair value in the order of $95,Million. 

The clear message here is that the land and infrastructure comes to Stadiums Tasmania without any substantial incumbrance nor any hint of a compensatory dividend flowing to the city's ratepayers. 

So, ratepayers' et al's long suffering indulgence that has been by-and-large unrewarding gets to be exploited. That's true for a large proportion of the city's population that goes largely unnoticed and unacknowledged at times like now.

Yes, operators in hospitality and tourism in more recent times have been the beneficiaries of people attending events at York Park but the pay off has been uneven. 

Yes, it is reported that York Park in recent times has been supporting a staff level thought to be about 10 EFTU workers and as is always the justification is that notionally the benefits 'trickling down' in the community. 

Nonetheless, there is something in the order of 30,000 ratepayers all of whom have an investment in the land and infrastructure at York Park which, virtually at the whim of Council's Management, is about to be whisked away on the basis of an 'Executive Initiative' for which there has been virtually no meaningful community consultation. 

Indeed the City of Launceston Council up to now has maintained a stance where it is claimed that Citizen's Juries/Assemblies are too expensive when there is evidence to the contarary.

The 'notional' $3Million PA "saving to ratepayers" is touted but largely unexplained in regard as to how that will come about and how it will be delivered. There are quite a few questions left unanswered on a "TRUST US WE'RE YOUR COUNCIL BASIS". 

Elsewhere, we are told that “the glue that holds all relationships together– including the relationship between the leader and the led – is trust, and trust is based on integrity.” Arguably, one needs to dig really deep looking for 'integrity' in regard to this initiative.

If we were to begin to look at York Park's Community of Ownership and Interest (COI) we would surely discover a great deal that 'Council functionaries' tend to wilfully overlook – and all too often, discount. That this Stadiums Tasmania initiative is proceeding at its current pace is concerning. 

It is especially so as for whatever reason 'management' seems disinclined to acknowledge the COI and the multidimensional cum multicultural of 'placedness'. Stakeholders interests are sometimes invoked but when it is so those considered so are typically an elite group. Once, it was also the case that particular communities were almost automatically 'left out'  –  Aboriginal people, immigrant communities, religious groups, et al – relative to place, identity and belonging. However, increasingly it is no longer so with immunity in the context of 21st C planning imperatives.

THE OBJECTION

There are at least four grounds upon which to object to this transfer of community assets from an indirect representational democractic governance body that bears all the 'hallmarks' of being a self-defining, self-assessing and arguably a self-serving unrepresentative bureaucratic entity Stadiums Tasmania. The grounds being:

• Firstly, Stadiums Tasmania's reason for being, is to be a statutory authority, formed to own, manage and develop Tasmania’s major stadium assets, supposedly worth approximately $200Million – $90PlusMillion of which it seems is York Park. 

Except for the 'assertion' that its 'purpose' is to be a 'statutory authority', arguably Stadiums Tasmania is by and large self-accountable and self-defining without reference to any particular constituency in any substantial way.

Indeed the entity is controlled at arm's length by Board Members / Non-Executive Directors, appointed by a division of the State Government and apparently without any kind of transparent 'community accountability strategy' being put in place.

Whereas, York Park in all its machinations over time has always been, and will remain a community asset with 'accountability' to the city's citizens such as that which is afforded by Local Government accountability mechanisms.

In summary, it is proposed that 'the represented' be overtaken by bureaucratic agencies –  appointed not elected – which in turn, if carried through, can be characterized as 'abdication'. 

Since Councillors are elected to represent the needs of their community, determine policy priorities, participate in community decision-making, advocate on local issues to do with placemaking and to contribute to determining Council’s strategic direction  – thus protecting community assets – mindfulness of this is needed. 

Handing over a $90PlusMillion 'community asset' and with the swift stroke of a pen, is clearly a somewhat sinister act of abdication on the part of all Councillors – the citizens elected representatives. More than that, it might well be seen as a duplicitous act on the part of management in their egging Councillors on for whatever reason.

Therefore I strongly object to this action and especially so given that it was initiated by a now defunct Council who can no longer be held 'accountable'.

• Secondly – and putting to one side the notion that people belong to and in places rather than 'places' belonging to people – the 'ownership issue' as is being acted upon, is totally at odds with the multidimensional, multifaceted, York Park  Community of Ownership and Interest COI.imperatives. An extraordinary number of people have legitimate 'ownerships and interests' invested in York Park as a 'place'. There is a class of 'rankism' evident in almost every aspect of what is being proposed in this initiative.

Rankism, like sexism, homophobia  is abusive, discriminatory, exploitative and affords practices and relationship based on 'rank' in a particular (assumed?) hierarchy. Its abuses underlies many other phenomena such as bullying, racism, ageism, sexism, ableism, anti-semitism etc. etc. It is an insidious circumstance and wherever it is found it must be called out.

There are practices and etiquette that enable the avoidance of rankism's worst and unacceptable manifestations. Of course we structure social networks on rank. However, as Robert W. Fuller tells us the 'nobodies' are those with less power – at a moment in time. Likewise, the 'somebodies' are those with more power – at a moment in time.

In Fullers' rankism, 'a somebody' in one setting can be 'a nobody' in another, and vice versa. A somebody now might be a nobody a moment later, and vice versa. The abuse of power inherent in rank is rankism. When somebodies use the power of their position in one setting to exercise power in another, that's rankism. When somebodies use the power of their position to put a permanent hold on their power, that is rankism.

Moreover, what is being proposed is an act of 'colonisation' – an act where the appropriation of place or domain for one's own purpose – and it is visibly, and palpably, based upon the application of supposedly superior power. Up to this point the 'imposition of power' has by and large gone on in isolation and insulated from incisive criticism and critique. In fact, the very notion that it might well be a "lay down mesire" is a demonstration of the blatant arrogance informing the initiative. Thus, no need to consider or consult the place's COI in any way.

Likewise, there is no evidence of any consideration being granted to the palawa/pakana people, the traditional owners and custodians of 'the place'. As much as any other in lutruwitaTasmania 'this place comes vested with cultural significance and 'sovereignty' that has never been seeded.

Against this backgrounding I strongly object to the apparently self-serving rankism that can be found in this largely bureaucratic and the possibilities to be found in this apparently self-serving initiative. It should not, and need not be tolerated nor endorsed at any level of governance at any time.

• Thirdly, despite the wording of the Stadiums Tasmania Act there is no real imperative for 'legal ownership' to be transferred to this new bureaucratic entity. The assumption that it will succeed, that it has the wherewithal to do so, or even can reliably do so, is at best a self-serving assessment – albeit understandably so. Tasmania's and Australia's legal system is what it is and it is open to challenge – and aggrieved people do so on a daily basis.

Launcestonians who have been investing in York Park are entitled to expect to receive a dividend – fiscal, social and cultural – as a consequence of their investment, or as an inheritance they have bought into by moving to the city. So long as 'local governance' is delivered in the current way in Tasmania 'constituents' need to be vigilant in protecting their 'investment'.

In this instance, the 'language' along with the assumptions drawn as a consequence of transferring 'ownership', and without meaningful consultation processes is spiked with the 'cultural cargo' to be found in inherited peri-colonial arrogance. It is not anywhere near what 21st C 'governance' should be, or indeed could be, advocating.

Apart from the so called relief of 'debt generating obligations' – the assumed $3Million pa – there is no hint whatsoever that Stadiums Tasmania will meet its obligations to 'the city' in the ordinary way like any other 'corporate entity'. On the face of it, relative to this initiative, the converse would seem to be the case.

The is no hint whatsoever that Stadiums Tasmania imagines itself as a 'charity'. That being the case, any claim now that Stadiums Tasmania is an organization whose 'purpose for being' is to give money, food, or help to those who need it, or to carry out activities such as medical research that will help people in need, and not to make a profit, and retrospectively, is errant nonsense to say the least. 

Like any other 'corporate entity' Stadiums Tasmania should be contributing to the provision of 'community infrastructure and services' given that it is its full intention is to avail the entity the benefits of these things. 

However, all the signals are present that, as an entity, Stadiums Tasmania intends to do draw on community  resources without meeting its local obligations. In time it also aspires to compete with the city's investors and developers in aspects of the 'visitor-based-economy' – some might argue unfairly.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Stadiums Tasmania's 'client base' will be using the city's roadways etc. to access its(??) facilities. Nor is there any doubt that Stadiums Tasmania will be consigning anything it deems to be 'waste' to the city's 'Waste Management Centre'.

Likewise, Stadiums Tasmania will no doubt be availing itself of ALL the city has to offer without any necessity to meet its corporate obligations. Ownership brings with it a set of 'rights' that in turn come with a full set of 'obligations' – there is no evidence for expecting this 'authority' will be doing any such thing . 

Stadiums Tasmania is clearly signalling that it aspires to be what might well be understood as embracing the status revelled in by the 'corporate citizens from hell' in this world. Stadiums Tasmania, on the evidence available, is not a charity albeit subliminally touted as a quasi not-for-profit entity. Whatever, it must pay its way!

If Stadiums Tasmania operates from York Park it must do so meeting all the obligations of any corporate cum institutional entity given that the entity is NOT a charity.

Unless and until Stadiums Tasmania engages with York Park's COI – to use the place's celebratory and colonising nomenclature – albeit a 'blighted place' the status quo might well prevail. The promised 'saving' of "$3Million pa" has all the prospects of being a mirage. 

Clearly, it is a proposition that comes clouded in a pall of smoke with mirrors flashing every which way.

In the end, the notion that we must, or can in fact lose something is both folly and an illusion. Why?  Because everything we think we 'possess' is just a mirage! And we just cannot lose something which is not actually there to be lost. 

Irrespective, of 'administrative rearrangements' 'Launcestonians' - whoever they are and however they imagine themselves – unranked ownerships and interests in this place cannot be whisked away for bureaucratic convenience.

Shannon Alder tells us that "Evil originates not in the absence of guilt; but in our effort to escape it.” Thus a very close look at what is at risk here deserves more careful consideration than is evident up until now.

Against this backgrounding I object strongly to the arrogant hubris that is on display and that is deeply invested in this initiative. Unless or until there has been meaningful and deliberative consultation with 'this place's' Communities of Ownership and Interest, albeit currently a somewhat messy circumstance, the status quo can and might well prevail. Overrunning and absolutely ignoring all those with legitimate ownerships and interests should never be considered either an ethical or equitable proposition and in its present form the initiative must not stand.

• Fourthly, there is the issue of 'natural justice' essentially being denied the City of Launceston's ratepayers and other citizens. That this might be the case it is a non-trivial consideration.

Given all that has already been canvased ratepayers and citizens have not been provided with meaningful and appropriate opportunities to contest what was essentially an initiative floated by City of Launceston management support by a cohort of Councillors almost entirely on 'fiscal grounds' and without due consideration being griven to York Park's Community of Ownership and Interest COI in any meaningful way.

Moreover, everything on display in regard ton this initiative runs counter to the State Government's GOOD GOVERNANCE GUIDE.

On the available evidence, deliberations on the initiative have apparently taken place 'in camera and well away form the maddening crowds'. Typically deliberation around the decision table has been assiduously avoided and only scantly reported on elsewhere. So, apparently as a test of the induction process, ITEM 16.3 appears on the agenda of just the second meeting of the NEW COUNCIL and presided over by a new Mayor, seeking its endorsement of the previous Council's decision making processes largely under a veil of secrecy. 

It turns out that confidentiality is a delicate bargain of trust and here it seems that the constituency is/was seen as being untrustworthy. For why? I what way? On what grounds?

On the grounds that Councillors are elected and are ultimately 'trusted' to represent all constituents I object most strongly, not only to the lack trust but also to the denial of natural justice. Unless and until Councillors meaningfully engage with York Park's COI, I contest Council's apparent disregard for the COI and I object most strongly to this community asset, owned by, and invested in by, the people of Launceston being transferred to Stadiums Tasmania. Indeed, Launceston's constituency is owed an apology given the circumstance that we have arrived at.

PLEASE CLICK ON A HEADING TO ACCESS THE ENTRY

GO TO CONTENT LIST