HCC: Foreshore For Sure, Hoons And Histrionics

Margot Giblin

Discussion of the view of the minister’s Foreshore Committee (consisting of one government, one Council and one resident member) revealed that in over a year it has only met once and has not yet stated a view on anything.
Hobart City Council
Open Meeting
Wednesday 26.3.08

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

Some agenda items:

The Development and Environmental Services Committee (DESC) reported that during the period 1 February to 29 February 08, 53 permits were issued to the value of $28,903,017.

In the twelve months ending 29 February 08, 607 permits were issued to the value of $132,244,042 and

In the twelve months ending 28 February 07, 534 permits were issued to the value of $112,069,804

Haigh, chair of DESC, felt this showed that Council ‘is tracking very well’.

Battery Point Foreshore – Design Concepts.

It was moved that:

1. The design concepts of the Parks and Customer Services Committee agenda of 13 March 08 be used as the basis for a public consultation process to determine community views on options to access the Battery Point Foreshore.

2. The Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment be advised, and appropriate consultation be undertaken regarding the process that the Council intends to follow.

3. The General Manager be authorized to arrange meetings as appropriate with the community and government.

4. An amount of $35,000 be listed for consideration in the 08/09 Parks Infrastructure budget for the public consultation stage of the project.

5. Tenders be called for a consultant to undertake a public consultation stage of the proposal.

Briscoe, chair of the Parks committee, said the design concepts ranged from a built elevated boardwalk to minor pathway improvements. He suggested that while some might like a more accelerated progress through Council for this venture the proposed sequence of events would ensure the minister would receive information on public responses to a variety of options. Briscoe referred to conversations with the present minister who had lamented the fact that no-one had come to him with a design or clear evidence of what the public thinks.

Zucco queried whether stakeholders had been formally approached, to which the answer was no. Christie, referring to the perception that Council had failed in communicating with residents over the Sandown Park Telstra tower, suggested that letters be sent to residents. Freeman saw this as redundant given the intention to ensure public consultation.

Harvey wanted point 1 to read ‘to access or not to access the Battery Point foreshore’. Valentine saw this as an attempt to widen the motion but Zucco referred to the suggestion as the silliest amendment ever to come before Council. Freeman concurred, calling it ludicrous, which was ‘putting it politely’. Haigh was concerned that approval of the motion might imply that building a walkway was a certainty. Ruzicka wanted an assurance from the state government that it would approve a walkway before money was spent on public consultation and suggested a deferral of the motion until this assurance was gained.

Valentine was happy with Harvey’s ‘or not’ suggestion which would ‘provide opportunity for a well rounded response’. It was important, he felt, that Council be seen not to be wasting money.

Briscoe, who has been involved in this issue for some time, informed the committee that successive relevant ministers’ views had been that they would agree to a walkway proposal if it could be demonstrated that there was significant community support. The proposed public consultation would provide this information.

He went on to say that Harvey’s suggestion was the silliest amendment he had heard in 14 years. It was in effect asking people to consider giving away their right to access the foreshore, a right which is not in question.

‘There is no option for no access. There may be an option to improve access, or not, but to suggest denying access is silly’.

Harvey’s amendment was lost. The motion as it stood was passed with Cocker and Ruzicka voting against it.

Queen’s Domain, Hobart – Targa – Proposed Stage

Briscoe, as chair of the Parks and Customer Services Committee, introduced Targa Tasmania’s request for a stage of its event to take place on the Domain on Sunday 20 April.

Historically there has been a stage in Hobart, usually on the Domain.

This was refused last year when a night stage was proposed. Briscoe said there should be a policy decision to allow a Domain stage with officers seeing to its administration. Safety issues and protection of the environment had been addressed by Targa. Successful consultation with Government House and the Botanical Gardens was in place.

Briscoe was aware that some councilors had made comments that were not supportive of Targa and the Domain stage and reminded his colleagues that the brief for management of the area was ‘that it provide for the health, recreation and enjoyment of people’.

Briscoe did not believe that councilors should bring their personal opinion into decision making as in this case it was no more than a difference of opinion on what constituted a sport. There was, he said, no proven link between Targa and hooning.

Haigh concurred, believing support for Targa was for those ‘who are rev-heads and who enjoy it’. She did not agree that personal opinion should take no part in decision making.

Elise Archer felt the situation had been summed up by Briscoe and Archer adding only that there was a need to look at the issue on balance.

Having done so she found that Targa’s contribution to the economy, its donations to medical research and its commitment to be carbon neutral by 2009 meant the positives outweighed the negatives.

Harvey pointed out that Targa is part of a multi million dollar global industry and as such needs to take responsibility for its carbon footprint.

He referred to conversations with Mark Perry, director of Targa, in which possible improvements were discussed and in which Perry conceded that the organization had needed a push to act further on emissions.

As a result Harvey moved an amendment ‘that Targa Tasmania be encouraged to establish a verifiable carbon offset program and a driver education package’.

The amendment was seconded by Zucco who was keen to clarify that while Targa had needed a push it was he who was effective in shifting Harvey on this issue and was therefore responsible for the win/win result. ‘I’m not even a Green alderman and I came up with that and it’s good to see that Harvey took my advice’.

Christie asked if Harvey would retract his comments on Targa as reported in The Mercury. Harvey demurred, maintaining that there was a significant divergence between what he had said and what was printed.

Christie went on to ask if the Minister for Tourism, seen to support another motor event, should be referred to as a hoon, and further, whether Valentine, ‘when in his leathers coming down the Brooker Highway on his bike’ also deserved the moniker. ‘To target Targa is completely ridiculous’, he said.

Cocker’s concern related to the location, querying whether the Domain and the values people attached to it were best served by staging the event there.

Ruzicka maintained that knowing the request would be approved by Council allowed her to stand and speak on principle without jeopardizing the event. She referred to media coverage of her comments as a beat up.

She then said ‘a limited analysis’ of Adelaide’s Grand Prix had linked the event with consequent dangerous driving by the public. She also read a long letter she had received from a resident of Grass Tree Hill supporting her contention that there was a link between motor sport events and irresponsible driving.

Ruzicka said she could support the amendment but not the entire motion.

Christie, said he was aware of some Ridgeway residents’ worries in relation to hooning. ‘Should we be inferring that Targa was to blame?’

Freeman was ‘glad that the Deputy Lord Mayor has nothing to do with science. You need something better than quoting from a limited report and an anonymous letter which hasn’t been circulated to all aldermen. I wouldn’t have allowed it as Chair. The Deputy is quoting anecdotal nonsense. To selectively quote as you have done is worthless’. Freeman went on to say he thought it unfortunate that the word ‘hoon’ had been used in relation to Targa. It is a word, he said, that refers to ‘boy racers burning rubber in illegal street races’. The use of the word had degraded the discussion in Council as it was a perjorative term used to stir up emotional responses. It does not, he said, apply to the controlled event Targa provides.

Valentine referred to the legitimate community concern over hooning but cautioned against suggesting a causal link with Targa. He also urged tolerance for sporting interests across a broad spectrum. He believed that the cars in Targa were little different to standard cars in relation to emissions.

There was then an extended stoush between Briscoe and Valentine, with Zucco interjecting, over the expressing of opinion. It seemed to centre on Briscoe feeling that Valentine should have done more than say to the media that he would not express his view on the Targa Domain stage until after Council debate. ‘You should have expressed the view that there was no connection between hooning and Targa’. It was not personal opinion that Briscoe had cautioned against but bias in debate and voting.

Briscoe was also of the view that good intentions and good science, while sometimes overlapping did not necessarily do so and any claims purporting to be scientific needed factual backing.

Ruzicka chose this moment to say that she had just emailed the Grass Tree Hill letter to all councilors. The ensuing uproar became, as in any brawl, difficult to track. Lowlights included Zucco leaping to his feet from his seat beside Ruzicka to yell several suggestions in her face. She maintained her right to speak on a point of explanation because she had been ‘misrepresented by Briscoe’. She went on to say that she was being bullied by Zucco, that it was frightening and that he was yelling at her. He didn’t stop. Ruzicka’s voice rose to say that if he wanted to shout she would match him, which she attempted. Now sitting, Zucco appeared to be conducting an elaborate examination of his finger nails. ‘And now he’s making fun of me!’ Ruzicka wailed.

Zucco roared at Valentine, Chair the meeting!’. This was interesting given Zucco’s contribution to making that task a near impossibility.

The motion approving the Domain Targa stage, with Harvey’s amendment intact, was passed with Harvey, Cocker and Ruzicka voting against it.

Review of Aldermanic Allowances.

It was decided not to employ a lawyer to put Council’s oral submission to the Board of Inquiry.

In debating the basis of the submission Ruzicka referred to the changing role of local government and asked whether councilors were just a bunch of do gooders or a legitimate tier of government. She referred to the recurring expense of elections particularly for Lord and Deputy Lord Mayor and the fact that councilors are not regarded as employees of Council and so do not benefit from statutory financial arrangements such as superannuation. Given the $90 million budget on which councilors are making decisions Ruzicka wondered if they were being reasonably remunerated for their responsibilities.

Haigh said she was about to reveal something she had never referred to in public before. Despite having proposed the last increase of $8,000 in 1994 she had received no benefit from that (until the introduction of GST) as it was cancelled out by the resultant loss of an equivalent amount from her widow’s pension. This had not been an equitable arrangement, she felt.

‘After 20 years I don’t give a damn who knows I’ve got a part widow’s pension, and I’d like to put a submission in about that. It hasn’t been fair’.

Briscoe made the point that councilors have the choice of whether to stand and whether to continue doing so. He referred to the last increase of 40% for the Lord Mayor being based on a submission that suggested s/he should be both rewarded and compensated. At the time it was suggested that councilors only be compensated. They received a 14% increase.

This time, Briscoe suggested, the emphasis should be the other way around. Diaries should form the basis of this work claim. Comparisons with other capital cities, as suggested in the draft submission, were invalid. Brisbane Council’s budget, for instance, is greater than that for the state of Tasmania.

While not suggesting that it should attract the equivalent of a full time salary and also acknowledging the community service aspect of the position Briscoe argued that councilors should be better compensated.

Zucco compared councilors’ remuneration with that paid to the members of the Sullivan’s Cove Waterfront Authority, which he said has taken on only a small part of what was previously Council business. In his view the Authority represented a waste of money.

Freeman was sure the draft submission had been prepared with good will and effort but suggested it should be junked. ‘It weighs against rather than for us. It’s full of words proving nothing. The capital cities comparisons are a waste of time’.

We need, he said, to compare ourselves with a like body, such as the Water Board, whose members are paid twice as much as Hobart City councilors. Freeman, who has sat on wages boards, said he would giggle if he received the present submission.

Cocker objected to the word compensation being used to describe remuneration for work done and suggested it be deleted from any submission. He suggested a formula which might take a Council’s financial turnover, its assets and the number of employees into account while keeping the focus on work value.

Valentine agreed that the emphasis should be on councilors this time round, adding that it was not about dollars but about fair treatment.

It was agreed to hold a workshop for councilors next week to formulate the Council’s submission. Six councilors will also present their own submissions to the board. They are Freeman, Briscoe, Archer, Haigh and Zucco.

In debating this issue Briscoe was hopeful that the media would be fair in their reporting of this bid by councilors to increase their pay.

If he’s talking about TT this writer is happy to provide councilors with an addendum to their work diaries in the form of individual tallies of hours spent on personal bickering, irrelevant meandering and self aggrandizing finger pointing during Council meetings over the last year.