Frustration in the council

THERE HAS been the beginning of some good discussion about the governance of the HCC and the committee structure on the Tasmanian Times web site (see particularly Turnoff thetelly, (Read in comments, HERE)).

The dialogue here and elsewhere in the more traditional three-sec grab media often appears to basically revolves simplistic
discussions of team work or the merit or otherwise of various individuals or the like. It suits the sale of newspapers to believe that council aldermen are a bunch of ‘killer bees’ or ‘busy bees’ or even ‘secret seven’ in conference.

Being a current council player I can inform you that the governance and policy development issues are more dynamic (and interesting) than one can probably imagine. There are some significant bigger picture stuff (for want of a better word) that we should be at least discussing.

The big questions. Are further reforms of the governance structure of the larger councils in Tasmania required or could the loose, fluid nature of councils deliver better outcomes than an adversarial system as in State Parliament?

Should we have a formal leader of the government and possibly an opposition leader positions in Councils and leave the Mayor to the important ceremonial roles such as opening events and chairing meetings?

The lack of clarity of these differing political and ceremonial roles in Tasmanian Councils does confuse many in the community. I don’t believe one can come to any conclusions about these questions yet but I offer my humble opinions and
observations.

As Mark Latham found to his peril – offering such policy comment
can open up more things than he imagined — but I believe I can be brave here — a website dedicated for those strong individuals who dare to say what they believe whatever the consequences!

I believe then it is productive to compare and contrast the local and state spheres of Government to attempt a beginning to the answer to these big questions.

Ceremonial role

Over centuries the state has separated the largely ceremonial role of Governor from the politics. There are formal groupings of elected representatives called governments and opposition parties headed by the Premier and leader(s)of the opposition(s) respectively.

In contrast in Hobart the incorrect perception amongst voters is that the Lord Mayor (LM) of the council has the types of powers similar to the Premier of the state. The powers are defined under the Local Government Act but it doesn’t necessarily mean that a Mayor is the leader of the Government of Council, only the chief spokesperson.

Yet the Mayor’s role can be principally defined by an individual mayor as largely ceremonial; keeping out of policy initiatives and development and appearing to be above politics. Rightly or wrongly this is the situation that I believe has developed at the HCC over seven years. It is a source of much frustration amongst individual alderman.

A majority Premier enjoys the confidence of the majority of one house of parliament. He or she is elected by their side of politics to be the leader. His or her side of politics is the government of the State. Depending on the independence or otherwise of the upper house members governments can frame laws and have them passed and enacted. There is a formal cabinet of ministers with specific responsibilities.

In Hobart the Lord Mayor is elected by all the residents that vote (and this is currently 49% of the eligible voters in 2005). He or she may or may not enjoy the confidence of the majority of the other councillors that are elected separately and in two batches at two year intervals. It not for me to say here whether or not that is the case on Hobart Council currently. Readers can make up their own minds but it is a dynamic situation. Next week the situation could change depending on the issue(s).

Confidence of the voters

The Lord Mayor has the confidence of the majority of those residents that voted and I for one, as are other aldermen very conscious of that fact. Balancing that however are the significant groups of individual alderman will form from time to time to achieve the goals of the community that they have been elected for. There may be, at times, a fluid majority of aldermen (at least 7) in a group. They could meet out of the public eye and you would not know about them — or they could meet more openly but either way one expects that dialogues will take place.

Formally there are six standing committees each with an elected Chair at the HCC. All important decisions from these committees are passed to full council for ratification or modification. But it could be considered, at least in Hobart, that the government of Hobart rests with these committees and not with the Lord Mayor or Deputy Lord Mayor. It is certainly different in a number of other councils which haven’t a strong committee structure.

Where to now — the civics education currently taught in the schools will enlighten the future local council voters. I would expect more interest in local councils in future years as they are pretty open democracies and do provide challenges as well as considering often significant issues for the community.

I believe there needs too to be more open and informed debate on policies, governance structures and processes rather than concentrating on individuals and so called ‘teams’ or lack of teamwork.

I welcome input to these few brief comments and observations.

(Ald) Jeff Briscoe
Chair Strategic Governance Committee

Jeff has been an alderman of the City of Hobart since 1994. He is a full time teacher of chemistry, maths and computing in a senior secondary college. He is an elected director of Connect Credit Union and holds degrees in Science, the Humanities and the Law. Some time in the future he is hoping to spend some years planting native trees and sailing around Tasmania if he can get away from the fascinating world of local government.