..

 Primarily There are four grounds upon which to mount an objection to the transfer oa community assets to a State Government Statutory Authority.

Firstly, Stadiums Tasmania’s purpose for being is to own'asserts' that its 'purpose' is quite simply to be a 'statutory authority', that is by and large self-accountable and self-defining and an entity that will operate without reference to or be accountable to a constituency. On the available evidence, fundamentally Stadiums Tasmania has been designed to be a standalone self-regulating autocratic operation.

It is concerning that Stadiums Tasmania, as an entity, is controlled at arm's length by Board Members / Non-Executive Directors. It turns out that these ‘directors’ are appointed by a division of the State Government and apparently without any kind of transparent 'community accountability strategy' being put in place.

Consequently, Stadiums Tasmania is rather like a rudderless ship that is not designed to deliver against any ‘performance criteria’. Put another way, the entity is virtually ‘purposeless’and therefore not actually required to deliver any kind of‘dividend’ – social, cultural, or financial – to the community – ratepayers, taxpayers, et al – who, by design, provide the entity with the wherewithal to exist as an entity – and at considerable expense.

Moreover, Stadiums Tasmania’s board may delegate any of the authority’s functions and powers to a range of people, individuals even, with unspecified accountability. This means that in the case of York Park those who transfer their ‘interest/investment’ in this ‘community asset’ do so without any real prospect of realising a return – social cum cultural dividend – in recompense for their substantial decades’ long investment in ‘their’ asset. 

Indeed, by ‘gifting’ this asset to an ‘authority’ that is not in any way accountable to those who have created the asset, Launcestonians lose all manner of opportunities. In fact, Launcestonians will miss out on, give up,  multiple opportunities to benefit from their very substantial long-term investments in York Park. This is untenable.

Secondly, the 'ownership issue' as is being acted upon, is at odds with the interests of York Park’s diverse multifaceted, community and the place’s stakeholders’ and their aspirations. An extraordinary number of people have legitimate ownerships and interests invested in York Park as a place – for them, a significant place. 

There is evidence of somewhat sinister 'rankism' in almost every aspect of what is being proposed in this initiative to gift a community asset to an authority unaccountable to them and by-and-large unaccountable to any community.

Rankism, like sexism, and homophobia is abusive, discriminatory, exploitative and it allows practices and relationship based on 'rank' in an assumed hierarchy to prosper. It blatantly disadvantages those assumed to be subordinate and powerless minions. 

Rankism also underlies many other socially toxic phenomena such as bullying, racism, ageism, sexism, ableism, and anti-semitism and it must not be ignored. The insidiousness of rankism diminishes whole communities and wherever it is found it must be called out.

Rankism's is unacceptable even though we structure social networks on rank. However, rankism tells so called 'nobodies' in a community that they are powerless and here it is at the service of bureaucratic need . This means that the 'somebodies'with power believe that must prevail. 

Nonetheless, in rankism, 'a somebody' in one setting is bound to be 'a nobody' in another, and vice versa. 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 in gifting of York Park is an act of 'colonisation' and an example of the appropriation of a place for one's own purpose. 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 messier" is a demonstration of the blatant arrogance informing the initiative. Thus, no need to consider or consult the people who have interests and ownerships in this place.

In addition, 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 there are people who 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 or endorsed at any level of governance at any time in 2024.

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 Stadiums Tasmania:

• Will succeed; and
• Has the wherewithal to succeed; and
• Can be relied upon to succeed; and it
• Lacks veracity and is at best a self-serving assessment. 

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 the gifting is spiked with the cultural cargo to be found in inherited colonial arrogance. It is not anywhere near what 21st C transparent accountable 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 any kind of charity. Therefore, any claim 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, 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. 

There is no doubt whatsoever that Stadiums Tasmania's client base:

• Will be using the city's roadways etc. to access York Parks facilities.
• Will be consigning anything deemed to be 'waste' to the city's 'Waste Management Centre'.
• Will be availing itself of all the city has to offer without any necessity to meet its corporate obligations in any form. 

Ownership brings with it a set of rights that in turn come with a full set of obligations and there is no evidence for expecting Stadiums Tasmania as a quasi-profit oriented operation to be meeting its obligations as corporate citizen . 

Stadiums Tasmania is not a charity and, it must pay its way but clearly it does not intend to. So much for the obligations of ownership.

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.

Against this backgrounding clearly there are powerful reasons to object , and object strongly to, the arrogant hubris that is on display and that is deeply invested in the initiative to gift York Park to Stadiums Tasmania.

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ the notes below have taken from my website …

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.