THE POST OFFICE CLOCK: A Launceston Placemaker

Launceston’s so-called ‘GREAT CLOCK DEBATE’ is as good a starting point as anywhere to look at what drives such debates in places like Launceston. Arguably what is at the centre of the debate are the issues of authority and ownership in law and lore.

Stakeholdership is very often invoked in debates like this one. However, the 'stakeholder' concept has become somewhat devalued in that it is often divisive in a community context in so much as 'stakeholders' typically assert their rights – assumed and legal – but rarely do they acknowledge their obligations at the same time – nor, by necessity, the rights of others with like or competing interests in an issue or place.

An alternative way of approaching such issues is to acknowledge that there is a broadly based Community of Ownership and Interest (COI) with individuals and groups within this 'community' that have multiple interests in and/or senses of ownership for a place/issue – including those understood as stakeholders, individuals and groups with a special interest, people with a pecuniary interest, etc. These 'ownerships and interests' will almost always be overlapping and quite often they may be in competition with each other. Once this is acknowledged, and articulated, it is possible to not only find a resolution to many conflicts but also find ways to accommodate conflicting interests and aspirations.

At the core of this particular debacle is the appropriateness of the nocturnal silencing of a heritage clock and cultural icon. The alderman at the centre of the debate seems to be looking for attention at some level or another as the advocate for the silencing of the clock. Why might that be? A cynic might well say that the evidence is there for all to see but is it?

We cannot take this subject all by itself as the alderman, Alderman and the Honourable Ivan Dean MLC, is at the very least consistent in one thing. In the search for relevance it seems that he has an inclination to take on issues that show great promise to be polarizing. Why might that be?

For instance, Tasmania is famous for polarized political debate and one needs to go no further than what is by now known internationally as the Tasmanian Forestry Debate. Indeed this debate carries a great deal of 'cultural cargo'. At either end (pole!) of this debate there is no shortage of champions while the ‘middle ground’ is a relatively lonely place.

The ‘clock debate’ is starting to look a lot like a localised version of Tasmania's polarized forestry debacle where yet again it seems that the issues are being presented as a 'black and white' issue. The Post Office clock is a 'placemaker' that carries a considerable amount of cultural cargo – history and heritage stories, personal stories, symbolisms to do with place, etc. It is a part of Launceston's cultural capital.

Speculatively, anything that has a smattering of consensus about it is ever likely to slip by, and virtually unnoticed, the ‘political class’ that the Hon. Ivan Dean seems to have aligned himself with. However, polarizing issues that very quickly generate debate – a great deal of heat and dust – win their attention hands down.

Typically consensus comes out of a discourse and/or productive conversations – very often with win-win outcomes. Debate on the other hand demands that there be winners and losers – ideally bloodied and bruised losers. There are always too many who lose too much in these somewhat gladiatorial cum 'machiavellian' contests for supremacy, superiority and/or victory over all.

What is most unattractive to such campaigners is the conciliation idea as that is read as weakness – arguably misread as such. Standing atop of a vanquished detractor with one hand on your heart and the other brandishing the ‘sword of justice’ held high is a much more attractive prospect for the street fighter with little or no aspiration for conciliation.

Let us take a look at a sample of the issues the Hon Ivan Dean takes on and champions. The ‘Fox Task Force’, smoking in public places, a Tamar Pulp Mill, leniency in sentencing, AFL games in Hobart, a flat rating system and now the nocturnal silencing of a cultural icon – Launceston’s Post Office clock – all figure in his collection of causes. Despite whatever the rights and wrongs inherent these issues might be, what they have in common is their considerable potential to be divisive and polarizing – the pay-off seemingly being, lots and lots of public attention.

The proponents of this sort of stuff assume it to be a demonstration of leadership. However, is it much more than grabbing a platform upon which to spruik an ideology or using the platform as a grandstand from which to build a profile? Possibly, it is predominately the latter.

As an exemplar of something/somewhere that carries considerable cultural baggage, Launceston’s Post Office clock, seen in a cultural context, is a part of the city’s cultural landscape. Indeed it is a ‘cultural cum heritage landmark’ within it. If one wanted to win the attention of ‘the natives’ it might be seen as an ideal icon to snipe at, or take pot shots at.

In this case it seems, and somewhat curiously so, that those unhappy with the clock as a part of their cultural landscape are those who are in business to sell, and capitalize upon, the city’s cultural heritage and cultural capital – or its cultural ambiance if you like. It is strange that they should want to detract from these things but maybe, just maybe, they quite simply do not fully understand the business, or the cultural landscape, they are operating within.

Quest Serviced Apartments, the interstate cum international corporation that the Hon Ivan Dean is championing here, has more than "130 properties in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji. They are located in central business districts, suburban and regional areas with close proximity to head offices, business centres and popular tourist destinations". Yet in choosing to repurpose a central Launceston heritage warehouse, this corporation does not seem to have done its ‘due diligence’ otherwise they might not be in the position they find themselves in now. Had they done so, they may well have chosen another property or dealt with the structure of the building and its architecture differently.

Interestingly the building in question here, had previously been converted to office accommodation. Anecdotal information from former tenants attest to the noise of the clock interrupting meetings and telephone conversations during the day, and to it being an issue – albeit one that it would seem was one that was both managed and manageable. If this was the case, then a number of questions arise.

• Firstly, what investigation did the current owners and/or their professional consultant team undertake before acquiring and developing this building for its current purpose?
  
• Secondly, in converting this multi-level building to its current purpose what strategies were employed to ensure that it would be fit for it new purpose?

It would seem that the building's owners, or the serviced apartments' operators, or their consultants, have either chosen to ignore or have overlook these issues whatever reason. There may well have been technical impediments or financial constraints. Nonetheless, it seems that the building's management has seen a need to retro-fit double-glazing on some windows.

Furthermore, this enterprise seems to be all alone as a complainant. If “tourists” are finding this accommodation wanting, and because of the Post Office clock, why aren’t other operators in this business sector within Launceston’s CBD joining them in the complaint being championed by the Hon Ivan Dean?

Quite possibly ‘the problem’ here is site specific. Furthermore, it may be the case that ‘the problem’ is being subjectively assessed. Then there is the quality of the “evidence” being used to advance the cause of ‘silencing the clock’, which is, arguably, anecdotal, circumstantial and subjective. In one sense that is not particularly problematic but given what is at stake, and the legal precedence that needs to be taken into account here, it is interesting that an ex-policeman, Alderman and the Hon Ivan Dean MLC, is not inclined to question the evidence's relative ‘weight’.

In contemplating what a competent barrister might make of this “evidence” one would also have to wonder how it might stand up ‘in law’. There is every prospect that it may be dismissed out of hand.

Should, as it seems it has been suggested, that the “evidence” be tested, and objectively, who should undertake the testing. Then comes the question to do with the cost of doing so and who should pay. On the evidence to hand there is a good argument that it should be the complainant who pays – and importantly that it should be an independent assessment.

Curiously, the Hon Ivan Dean MLC seems to be advocating that Launceston City Council should be paying. Why so? The argument for that being the case is yet to be put it would seem. Why? Also, the nature of such evidence, and the cost of gathering it, is somewhat unknown. Perhaps little of this has been contemplated by the Aldermen who it seems are willing use ratepayers funds to undertake this work. Again, why might that be?

Clearly what has become so evident is that the Post Office Clock has an extensive Community of Ownership and Interest (COI) that has diverse overlaying, sometime interfacing and sometimes competing interests in and senses of ownership for this ‘heritage icon’. The people who make up this COI (constituency?) live in and are a part of the city. They also live elsewhere. Many people have a part of their ‘Launcestonian’ identity invested in not only the building’s architecture but also its function and cultural ambiance – and that includes the ringing out of the clock’s bells on the hour. Indeed, the clock is as much the ‘Town Clock’ as it may be the Post Office clock.

An example of 'bells' being a cultural definer exists in London. Anybody claiming to be a 'Cockney', and who was not born "within earshot of Bow Bells" – the bells of the church of St Mary-le-Bow – would be regarded as an interloper or a fraud. Similarly, a great many Launcestonians' 'placedness' is defined by their living, or working, within the 7250 Postcode – the epicentre of which is occupied by the Post Office and indeed the town clock.

The evidence for the Post Office's clock being a part of Launceston's cultural capital, in part at least, lay in the way the local newspaper, The Examiner has taken up the issue and in particular the two page spread in Saturday July 16th paper – not to mention letters to the editor etc. etc.

If there is to be an investigation of the impact this clock’s nocturnal striking actually has upon tourism ventures in the city, an audit of its Community of Ownership and Interest needs undertaken at the outset. With that in hand it will be possible to better assess, and evaluate:

• The quality of the evidence to hand;
• The nature and status of this evidence;
  
• The relevance of the evidence;
  
• The means by which the Community of Ownership and Interest's layers of aspirations and needs can be met; and
• Where, and with whom, the various sets of rights and obligations lay and thus who should pay for the research.

It is quite possible that it will become obvious that Launceston City Council, as a representative body for a section of this cultural icons Community of Ownership and Interest has a limited, if any, obligation to bear the cost of the investigation.

Ray Norman 2011 Tasmanian Coordinator: Landliteracy Network