Margot Giblin
Sexton felt that using local government elections to test views on such issues was a good idea, pointing out that this Council had wanted to shift to four yearly elections and that a poll added value to the two yearly election insisted on by State Government. He also felt that to hold a concurrent poll might raise the level of voter participation from its present 50%. Sexton pointed to the possible adverse effect on income of all who banked on the clean air image of Tasmania. The example of a tourist town in Finland, enormously popular despite its proximity to a pulp mill had been used, said Sexton, to argue that it would have no effect. The difference, he said, was that tourists headed for that town’s attraction, a 15th century wooden town at its centre, would not be worrying about air quality. Our pristine environment is part of our attraction, he said, adding that aldermen should look at the possibility of Briscoe being right in saying it will be affected, said Sexton, repeating the adage ‘Failure requires no preparation.’
Hobart City Council
Open Portion of the Council Meeting
Monday 13 August 2007
5pm
Aldermen Present: Lord Mayor Rob Valentine, Deputy Lord Mayor Eva Ruzicka, Jeff Briscoe, Peter Sexton, Ron Christie, Helen Burnet, John Freeman, Eric Hayes, Marti Zucco
Lyn Archer arrived at 5.20pm
Apologies: Philip Cocker
Leave of Absence: Darlene Haigh
Some Agenda Items
No to:
Subdivision of 1-9 Hall St Ridgeway, with advice that any revised application should satisfy the density provisions of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 and pay appropriate regard to the vegetation, cultural landscape values and environmental constraints of the land.
Yes to:
Subdivision at 173-181 Waterworks Road, Dynnyrne, with conditions.
Zero Net Carbon Emissions by 2020 – Review. Actions required for the Hobart City Council to achieve this will be identified through the preparation of the revised HCC Corporate and Community Greenhouse Local Action Plan. Both Brisbane and Melbourne’s efforts in this regard will be looked at. Aldermen and members of the community will be invited to submit any specific examples for consideration as a measure that would contribute to carbon emission reduction.
During debate on this item both Valentine and Burnet acknowledged the role played by Philip Cocker in bringing this proposal to Council and regretted his absence from this meeting.
And Yes to:
Upgrade of intersection of Cross and Valentine Streets, New Town.
Recording occupation licenses on relevant property records.
An Aldermanic workshop being held to further discuss the 20 Year Strategic Framework and 5 Year Strategic Plan
Alderman Hayes nomination as the Council’s representative on Totally South Tourism’s proposed regional tourism working group to be known as the Southern Tasmanian Local Government Tourism Group, and Alderman Christie’s nomination as the Council’s proxy representative.
The motion to rescind the current Aldermanic Code of Conduct and adopt a revised code which includes a definition of Perceived Conflict of Interest saw debate widen to include a second sucessful motion from Ruzicka, that a report be prepared on audio recordings of Council meetings.
On the latter, Briscoe supported the preparation of a report but expressed some reservations about the point of audio taping. He felt that the only important thing was the conclusions arrived at – so what, he asked, would be looked at in the tapes – “is it the level of debate, whether we speak or not? What is the point, how are we going to be judged? Do the negatives outweigh the positives?’
Burnet made the point that a public already dismayed by the level of some debate may be further put off by it being taped but supported any move to increase transparency.
Valentine, also supportive, referred to the difficulties of identifying individual speakers and cautioned that tapes, if approved, should be used to disseminate information, not as an instrument of torture.
Zucco asked for an immediate check on his microphone and a review of the position of the speakers in the chamber, faults which he felt were the cause for his dissatisfaction with the reporting of Council meetings on a certain internet chat site.
Zucco also took this seemingly unconnected opportunity to ask that the Privacy Act be looked at and to remind those present that Private and Confidential means Private and Confidential.
Back to the Drawing Board for Bicycle Hoops outside the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. A letter from Mr de Hahn, the TMAG manager of Business and Support Services did not satisfy Freeman as being definitive approval for the installation of hoops. The TMAG board, of which he is a member, had not approved and beyond this Freeman objected strongly to the manner in which the above letter had been introduced, which he described as an ambush. He described the chain of events, in which a letter received by Council several months ago had not been properly distributed to relevant aldermen but had appeared mid meeting, as most unfortunate and hoped that it didn’t happen again.
The meeting finished with two proposals coming to Council from individual aldermen.
The first from Zucco, moved that a detailed report be prepared on expenses in the Lord Mayor’s Support Unit over the past 2 years with particular reference to motor vehicle expenses, payments to charities or charitable events paid by this Council on behalf of the Lord Mayor, the budget allocation for the Unit with background information to be included as to the policy in which other associated payments are paid such as travel payments for the Lord Mayor’s partner, with a view to having this policy reviewed.
Zucco’s intention, he said, was to widen the debate on petrol allowances, which he saw as a single dot on an otherwise blank sheet of A4 paper. He wanted to broaden the issue by particularly referring to the expenses of the Lord Mayor and partner, two people who, he said, might not always be of opposite genders. Therefore it might be time to stop using the term Lady Mayoress. Zucco also looked forward to a time when the Lord Mayor might, in his official capacity, be riding a push bike.
Briscoe considered the motivation behind Zucco’s motion to be good, with reference to the ad hoc nature of decisions relating to the Lord Mayor and partner’s expenses, which he felt needed to be tightened up. He attributed a quote from Green News which described the Lord Mayor’s official vehicle as ‘petrol guzzling’, to Burnet, whose name appears as authorizing the publication. Burnet claimed Briscoe was misquoting as it was Philip Cocker who had made the comment. In a hotly debated argument on what it means to authorize a publication as opposed to making a statement, Briscoe, with strong support from Zucco, insisted that Burnet owned the petrol guzzling comment.
Moving on, Briscoe suggested that the present situation in relation to expenses did not assure maximum accountability or transparency and that matters related to the Lord Mayor’s allowances need to be out in the open so that it could be decided if they were all appropriate, which he hoped they were.
Burnet’s suggestion that the report asked for, given its still narrow focus, constituted a witch hunt, was withdrawn when objected to by Zucco, as requested by Valentine on the grounds that it suggested Zucco was targeting the present Lord Mayor.
Valentine himself was comfortable with the motion as it stood, saying that it was a nightmare checking that everything he did was acceptable, but that he did this on every occasion involving spending the city’s money. He also referred to the unlikelihood of any irregularities surfacing now as the budget had been approved annually by the full Council.
As far as his official mode of transport goes Valentine said he wasn’t precious about vehicles and would be happy to have a Fiat Bambino – if that was what Council wanted the Lord Mayor of a capital city. He stressed that the decision was not his and that a motion for a change of vehicle needed to come forward if that was wanted. Briscoe said that Valentine could have introduced such a motion to which the Lord Mayor said he would. Briscoe replied that it would be his first introduction of any motion in eight years. Valentine said this was not true.
Zucco said that while he didn’t want to point them out ‘there is some ad hoc matters happening. This is about transparency and not attacking former aldermen of this city. I’m expanding the dot.”
Burnet asked that the two years time frame for review of expenses be extended to ten and that only those related to the Lord Mayor’s motor vehicle be addressed. There was no seconder to this and the motion in its original form was passed with only Ruzicka voting against it as she held the view that it should not only be the Lord Mayor’s expenses that were being looked at. Others felt that a wider review was already covered in the motion passed at the last Council meeting for a report to be prepared on remuneration and benefits for aldermen.
An electoral poll on the proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill was moved by Briscoe who asked that an urgent report be prepared, that the report canvas the logistics, cost and other considerations of holding it at the same time as the October local government elections of the HCC and that the report propose suggestions to encourage the other 28 Councils to hold similar polls.
Briscoe, in introducing the motion referred to the vital importance of water and the enormous differences in prices to be charged for one megalitre, comparing the $24 to be paid by the pulp mill with $1200 for farmers. Briscoe said his interest was in the democratic process and held that an elector poll would cost less than a referendum. Given that time is of the essence he asked for an urgent officers’ report to be prepared.
While supporting the motion Zucco aired his concern over how local government elections are conducted, asking whether the Electoral Office checks that every ballot paper matches the person said to have voted.
Ruzicka suggested that the question to be asked in the poll refer specifically to the process used for the Gunn’s proposal, the type of pulp mill proposed and to the location chosen in the Tamar Valley. Briscoe accepted this modification to his motion pointing out that whatever question is put forward it will be considered by the electoral office to ensure that it is not biased.
Sexton felt that using local government elections to test views on such issues was a good idea, pointing out that this Council had wanted to shift to four yearly elections and that a poll added value to the two yearly election insisted on by State Government. He also felt that to hold a concurrent poll might raise the level of voter participation from its present 50%. Sexton pointed to the possible adverse effect on income of all who banked on the clean air image of Tasmania. The example of a tourist town in Finland, enormously popular despite its proximity to a pulp mill had been used, said Sexton, to argue that it would have no effect. The difference, he said, was that tourists headed for that town’s attraction, a 15th century wooden town at its centre, would not be worrying about air quality. Our pristine environment is part of our attraction, he said, adding that aldermen should look at the possibility of Briscoe being right in saying it will be affected, said Sexton, repeating the adage ‘Failure requires no preparation.’
Sexton suggested an amendment, which was accepted, that appropriate marketing responses to any disadvantages ensuing from a mill be explored, emphasizing that the South is pulp mill free.
Christie’s support was expressed in the view that this is not only a northern issue.
Freeman, while admiring the fervour of his colleagues advised against allowing a ‘tsunami of enthusiasm to overwhelm them in the face of the reality that John Gay would be digging great big holes in the ground, because I’m sure it’ll go through, long before an election poll four months away’.
Hayes said he took Freeman’s view very much to heart but as the Tasmanian people had been denied a part in a very important decision ‘this is a windmill worth tilting at’.
Burnet agreed with Sexton that a poll might get voter numbers up and that, bar Freeman, it was interesting to see support around the table for the motion, which ‘suggests it’s a much greener council than I would have thought’. Zucco, not usually at a loss for finding grounds for a point of order, laughed as he admitted himself defeated by this provocation.
Burnet said that she simply never gives up hope, which in this case was for some shift in a government and a premier that don’t appear to want to shift or heed public opinion.
Valentine felt comforted by the fact that it was only a report being called for, which he wouldn’t stand in way of, and added that he supported Sexton’s comments on an appropriate marketing response.
Briscoe summed up by rejecting the notion that the motion was not timely saying that to stand back and do nothing was wrong. So close to being seen to be in agreement Briscoe now opined that he and Valentine had different philosophical views to which the Lord Mayor replied that Briscoe was inferring that they disagreed, which was not the case.
Even in the face of a proposed pulp mill it seems these aldermen cannot let a chance go by to attempt to score a personal point.
With Freeman the lone dissenter, the motion was passed.
