HCC: ANZ and the mill

Margot Giblin

The Finance and Corporate Services Committee, chaired by Freeman had already considered the motion that ‘the Council determine the next course of action, if any, in relation to its investment with financial institutions associated with the proposed Tamar Valley Pulp Mill’, and that a letter in relation to this be sent to the ANZ bank.

Harvey regarded the plebiscite, (run concurrently with the last Council elections asking voter opinion on the decision making process and site) as a mandate to ensure that Council did not invest with ANZ if it chooses to finance the mill.
Hobart City Council
Open Meeting
Monday 25 February 2008
5pm

Councilors Present
Lord Mayor Rob Valentine, Deputy Lord Mayor Eva Ruzicka, Marti Zucco, Peter Sexton, Ron Christie, Philip Cocker, Bill Harvey, Elise Archer, Helen Burnet, John Freeman, Jeff Briscoe, Darlene Haigh

JANE FRANKLIN HALL at 308-310 Davey St.will upgrade its access. The response to neighbours’ fears that this might mean future development on the site was that Council can only consider the proposal before it.

28 Pirie St. New Town can have two additional flats.

2C Derwent Lane, Battery Point (Purdon and Featherstone Reserve) and the adjacent jetty will have a sea level observation system which, with its mast painted black promises to be unobtrusive.

Clarification of ownership, requested by Burnet, was that the Crown owns the jetty, Council owns the land.

Further north on the same foreshore such clarity is not evident.

My understanding is that Council now owns the strip of land between high and low water mark below 11 Marine Terrace, Battery Point, notwithstanding that final payment is yet to be made.

11 Marine Terrace, also known as The Anchorage, is on the market with the claim in the Real Estate Guide (8.2.08) that it includes title to low water mark.

The wording of The Planning and Building Adminstration Fee Rebate for Energy Efficient Planning and Design has been tweaked. Condition 2 now reads that “Any rebate granted will be payable as a cheque to the payee(s) of the Planning and Building Administration Fees.” and Condition 3 that “In order to claim the rebate, provide a copy of the Certificate of Completion with the application form, along with evidence demonstrating that the rebate qualifying criteria have been met (by supplying correct and complete information on the application form).”

Councillors Haigh and Ruzicka will attend the Planning Institute of Australia National Congress in Sydney from 13-16 April 08 at an estimated cost of $2,100 per person, to be funded from the Aldermanic Conference allocation in the City Government Function of the 07/08 Annual Plan.

The Dog Management Plan’s due review is almost complete. Council officers were congratulated for its success with Christie suggesting a copy be sent to Clarence Council.

Signage will be erected in relation to not smoking within 10 metres of children’s’ play areas in Council parks. Briscoe stressed that the emphasis was educational rather than punitive and suggested that adjustments to the prescribed distance be made if !0 metres extends into neighbouring private property or passing cars.

Ruzicka spoke to the motion with a homily on the nasty side effects of smoking.

Burnett asked which committee would address the issue of smoking and al fresco dining. The answer was either Development and Environmental Services or Strategic Governance.

Haigh, as a mother of three asthmatics, supported the playground ban.

Valentine referred to occasional press comments that Council tries to control too much. In this case he felt intervention was appropriate, given the effect of smoking on others.

Briscoe concurred, saying that Valentine had hit the nail on the head and compared this Council’s approach with the French – where everything is prohibited unless a sign says it isn’t.

The Finance and Corporate Services Committee, chaired by Freeman had already considered the motion that ‘the Council determine the next course of action, if any, in relation to its investment with financial institutions associated with the proposed Tamar Valley Pulp Mill’, and that a letter in relation to this be sent to the ANZ bank.

Harvey regarded the plebiscite, (run concurrently with the last Council elections asking voter opinion on the decision making process and site) as a mandate to ensure that Council did not invest with ANZ if it chooses to finance the mill.

He referred to a 75% poll return disapproving of the mill.

One of the many reasons Freeman gave for dismissing Harvey’s arguments was that this was not 75% of the electorate but of the 52% who voted.

Briscoe asked whether withdrawing investments would attract penalties.

Not, according to officer advice, if they were allowed to mature. A typical Council investment runs for between 30 to 80 days.

Zucco expressed amazement at how some people twist and turn things to suit themselves. There was no mandate, he said, in relation to the City’s investments and in any case the Greens were not against the pulp mill but its site.

Burnett’s attempt to clarify this point was disallowed. Unable to express her concern as a point of order she had to let this one go.

Zucco continued. “The Greens are really about logging old growth forest – and what’s that got to do with the pulp mill? The issue at the election was not about getting mandates on investments – it was about the process. It would be interesting to know if any Greens have connections, directly or indirectly with ANZ. This is one of the biggest jokes I’ve ever seen in my entire life. I’m sorry but it’s hypocrisy of the Greens to come here and tell us what we can do.”

Briscoe felt that as one of the few councilors to have been director of a financial institution he was qualified to say that there was no way of knowing exactly where the money for the pulp mill might be coming from. He added that as banks swap money internally targeting the ANZ alone might not hit the right mark. If a gesture was the desired outcome, he said, it would need to take effect immediately, which would invoke penalties.

He pointed to the good things ANZ does such as its involvement with a large aged care provider, which would be punished as well.

Given the poll’s aims,( introduced by him), Briscoe felt there was no premise on which to base the proposed action. He said it would give the impression that the Council had no understanding of financial markets and also smacked of ‘I’m taking my bat and ball home’ behaviour in the face of an entity not doing exactly what Council wanted.

Sexton agreed with Briscoe saying that the ANZ hasn’t made its decision yet and that Council shouldn’t lace that process with threats.

Burnet felt that it was all very well to put up an elector poll on an issue but, given the result, it was not enough to say that Council now reflects community concerns unless it takes proactive steps to demonstrate this.

Freeman said that he could forgive Harvey for his naïve motion, given his newness on Council but found it harder to forgive Burnett.

It is our duty, Freeman said, to invest money for the benefit of ratepayers. It is not our business to take investments and attempt to influence businesses on an issue that is not our business anyway. It is improper. It is an unforgivable suggestion. This is finance on the run, which is worse than planning on the run. It is naïve and foolish and shouldn’t be being considered. Council doesn’t work this way. Further, he said, the poll didn’t refer to the investment issue being discussed.

Zucco interrupted, then apologized.

The apology was not needed but in his opinion Zucco should change his green shirt, said Freeman. Now I have lost it, he said, and sat down.

Haigh said that while she couldn’t support his motion she did have sympathy for Harvey, having been trounced with similar vigour by Freeman in her early days on council. Freeman had been as much a beginner as her, but he had allies, she said.

Elise Archer said she couldn’t support the motion although she respected Harvey’s view. She didn’t think it right to dictate to ANZ how to carry out financial transactions. “We can’t be seen to withdraw on this basis. We won’t have anyone left to invest with. This is, dare I say it, a pet issue of some people.”

Christie queried why the proposed letter’s reference to the poll didn’t mention that only 51% of the electorate voted and asked what the letter was meant to do.

Cocker argued that a mandate does exist, given the percentage of people showing they cared about the issue, and that Council should act to represent their views. In listening to Freeman’s earlier objection to the prospect of having to draw up a list of unacceptable investments Cocker said he found this an excellent idea. “We should put our money where our values are.”

Valentine said it was not illegal for Council to be considering this motion. We’ve discussed whales and nuclear weapons before. The real question is whether we can suggest the plebiscite had this purpose. In his view, and given that Council has never made a decision on whether it supports the pulp mill, he felt it was stretching things too far. It isn’t clear enough that this is what people want us to do.

The motion to withdraw investments from ANZ was lost.

How to deal with both graffiti, and graffitists if caught, was debated as was the role of the Police Liason Committee and its Council Chair. This descended with staggering rapidity into an exhaustive and tedious brawl between two councilors. It can be a shock to find, when you are an involuntary witness to other peoples’ disputes, that the antagonists are so far into it that any sense of appropriate time, place or audience has been lost. A public Council meeting is the wrong forum for airing grievances even if they are work-place based.

After a lot of time wasting and boring point scoring it transpired that Council already has a 24 hour policy for removing graffiti, and an information hotline. All that could fruitfully be added was improvement in co-ordination, an offer to assist affected private property owners and a report on the possibility of a volunteer based week long attack on already present graffiti. There was a marked difference between councilors’ views on the burden of proof requirement if someone were found on the streets carrying cans of spray paint and on the treatment of apprehended offenders. Haigh suggesting that help rather than punishment was needed and Zucco said graffiti on a fence was the same as ‘smashing the fence down – a serious crime.’

The motion which included Council participation in the Community Respect Orders Program was passed with Haigh, Burnett, Cocker and Ruzicka voting no.

Freeman hoped that his demonstrated ability to discuss Holy Trinity Church without using the word ‘icon’ would be emulated by others. It wasn’t. There was general agreement that it was only the physical building that was of Council concern and not the future of the parish’s religious aspirations. Of options already discussed at committee Freeman expressed his preference for the School for Stonemasons. It was resolved to wait for the Council initiated Conservation Management Report to be completed before deciding on appropriate Council involvement.

On Earth Hour and Climate Change councilors were led by Sexton, in presenting their decision to support this, having initially rejected it, as a thoughtful and deliberate process, preferable to immediate rubber stamp approval and not a shamed response to the Premier’s challenge. Sexton expressed the hope that Council could look forward to celebrating achievements at both state government and Council levels, with Premier Lennon, in the future.