Margot Giblin
What is your view of a limit to the number of consecutive terms of office to be held by Hobart City Council aldermen?
Responses are presented roughly in the order they came to me, unedited.
Jeff Briscoe: No — not for Aldermen — but probably for positions of Lord Mayor and Deputy. But the issue is complex and needs a careful analysis. My first view of the issue is that the community determines whether or not an Alderman is its representative and it would be an anti-democratic move to deny voters the choice. Such a move would grossly devalue the work of long standing and very effective elected representatives. The issue goes to the heart of democracy.
John Freeman: No. If some-one is not wanted by the community then they will be voted out. The best thing to change the system is compulsory voting on a single day as every other level of government has. The current system is expensive, protracted and still only gets 50% turn out.
Peter Sexton: I strongly support a maximum number of contiguous terms eg: 3 x four year terms unless concurrently either Deputy or Lord Mayor. After one election former aldermen could stand again for Council.
Philip Cocker : I am strongly in favour of a maximum of 3 terms with a break of 2 terms. An additional 4 year term would be available on elevation to Deputy or Lord Mayor.
Eva Ruzicka (Deputy Lord Mayor): In my own opinion, yes, for all elected positions, not just local government. It overcomes the problem of incumbency. It encourages people to stand knowing they have more chance of getting a seat against a known name. It provides a circuit breaker for the negative effects of political factions and possible corrupt behaviour brought about by being able to institutionalize behaviours. It provides an opportunity to refresh ideas and directions and to consider new trends and information.
A contra argument would be that ‘corporate’ knowledge/memory may be lost and that fixed terms only strengthen the stranglehold of the permanent bureaucracy on change. However that is overcome by elected people freely sharing information and ensuring that information is publicly available and recorded for their replacements.
Ron Christie: No limit. If you’re capable of doing the job and enjoy the job, stay at it. At the end of the day, if you’re not performing, the community will vote you out, or at least should. Voting should be compulsory and the system of 6 aldermen being elected each term is a good system rather than all in, all out. In local government you need those 4 years experience of the remaining 6 to stay and, if needed, assist newcomers. A little different to State and Federal where the job requires the formation of legislation. Local government enacts the legislation (plus makes a few bylaws on the way) but at the end of the day it’s all about getting the job done.
Helen Burnet: I am in favour of 2 x 4 year terms for Aldermen. It would be better if the elections were all in all out and that mayoral and deputy terms were for 4 years. Then we would have a chance to get down to real business in that 4 year period rather than have the continual dog fighting that occurs every 2 years with people vying for those prestigious positions and forgetting that they are there for the people, not their own egos.
Eric Hayes: That’s up to the ratepayers. They don’t have to re-elect sitting members if they don’t want to.
Darlene Haigh: This is something I’ve heard put forward consistently since I came on to Council. No. You lose continuity and corporate knowledge. People seem to think it would be easier to get onto Council if they got rid of some who are already on it. It’s not so. That wont provide an easy ride onto Council for anyone. If you go out and do some community work and get yourself well known you’ll get on.
Marti Zucco: This is a ‘Greens’ policy that is ridiculous and in fact stupid to say the least. This concept is narrow minded and those who advocate it have no idea of how Local Government works. I could go on for hours but it is too ridiculous to waste my time on. Why don’t those who advocate such stupidity get on with doing some real hard work on Local Government instead of just ‘talking the Talk!!!!!!!!!!! I walk the talk!!!!!!!!!!!!
No Experience No Knowledge and No Hope, I say.
I think Federal and State leaders of any political party should lead by example on this question of fixed terms, if that is their belief.
Rob Valentine (Lord Mayor): I suppose my philosophical view is that it’s a democratic process in which the people choose. There is no limit at state and federal and local government should be the same. One of the things we’ve been pursuing is Constitutional recognition. The benefit would be that Council becomes its own entity. At the moment we’re a creature of State Government. One of the basic tenets of the Constitution is that the people choose. The open process of democracy is very important to the nation. Once you start fiddling with democracy in the way suggested what would come next —– do you have age limits introduced? What other strictures might arise? In relation to compulsory voting my personal view is again that we should be the same as for Federal and State levels of government — therefore compulsory.
Lyn Archer was not asked the question given that he is not able to participate in Council activities at the moment.
Points of information: The terms of office for Aldermen are set by Sections 44 and 46 of the Local Government Act.
According to the HCC General Manager, Brent Armstrong, changes to the Act do occur, generally following discussion between the government and the LGAT, or are brought about by particular issues which may need immediate attention, though the latter occurrence is rare.
