HCC: pay pals

Margot Giblin

Ruzicka had opened debate by saying that she would not equate herself with a politician given that councilors do far more – especially in relation to addressing individual concerns of residents.
Hobart City Council Open Meeting
28.4.08
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, Jeff Briscoe, Darlene Haigh

Leave of Absence: John Freeman

Some Agenda Items

2 Augusta Rd, 466 and 462 Elizabeth St New Town. The application to extend the existing building on site and create a shop and bottle shop was refused.

In presenting the DESC (Development and Environmental Services Committee) decision to oppose approval its chair Darlene Haigh cited the instances in which it failed to meet planning scheme requirements. She also referred to the main problem of the effect on traffic flow and safety, especially in Augusta Rd where Haigh had witnessed many ‘near misses and little bingles’. There had been 24 representations against the development.

Briscoe was scathing of the DESC decision, wondering ‘what the committee does’. When he had been on that committee every effort had been made to overcome problems with proposals. Why, he asked, had this not been done here in relation to inadequate set-backs?

He asked if other councilors were aware of the neighbouring church’s support for the proposal. Haigh’s response was that even if the parish wasn’t concerned about its own heritage values Council should be.
Briscoe described a Hill St style gourmet food and alcohol outlet as being probably a very good use of the site. He wondered how Council could refuse a development if it had followed the rules and had approval of both a neighbour and Council officers. The latter said there were no major traffic problems. The fact that people were already walking against pedestrian lights there was not good enough reason to oppose the development. He felt Council would be made to look silly if it refused.

Christie was supportive of the proposal, checking with Council’s aptly named Mr Parker that a consultant for the developer and Council’s own traffic engineer agreed that sight lines and anticipated traffic movements had been adequately dealt with.

Entry would be off Elizabeth St and traffic would exit and enter on Augusta Rd. He cited other facilities that cope with traffic problems such as Video City in Newtown, the Hill St Grocer in West Hobart and Lipscombe’s Larder in Sandy Bay. He said that residents would benefit as there was no gourmet food and alcohol outlet in the area.. It looks, he said, as if complaints from residents have influenced DESC.

Elise Archer said she ‘agreed with Briskett…. sorry, Briscoe…’ which confusion she put down to combining his name with Christie’s rather than the culinary ambitions of the proposal.

She opined that Council should demonstrate a ‘can do’ approach especially as other options such as a petrol station, supermarket or a park hadn’t garnered support. She pointed out that the parking spaces to be provided was above the required number. From a legal viewpoint Archer suggested that Council would probably lose an appeal and therefore she could not support refusal.

Burnet, a member of the DESC committee, said that its discussion had been wide ranging on this development. She reminded those aldermen who were critical of DESC’s methods that there is still a vacancy on that committee as well as the freedom for any councilor to attend its meetings and contribute to debate.

Discussion, she said, had been around whether the development was in keeping with local needs. She suggested the developer could have done more to address pedestrian flow.

She was not reassured by the Hill St Grocer comparison given the traffic that shop generates. We do not, she said, need a ‘can do’ approach if the development is wrong for the site. She took both resident concerns and her own considerations into account in not supporting the proposal.

Harvey, in considering the application carefully over a couple of weeks, regretted the lack of consultation between developer and residents. He also felt precise information on the proposed food and alcohol outlet was lacking – ‘is it a boutique or is it a convenience store?’ he asked.

Valentine said the decision could only be made on what was before them, not on whether community consultation had occurred. His only major concern was access, which is to be from and to an already busy confluence of streets. There have been 30 recorded crashes on this corner between 2002 and 07, and that, he said, was with no activity on the site. Any suggested solutions regarding traffic flow would only shift the pressure and the problem to nearby streets. If the traffic worry could be solved he would not be unhappy with the proposal.

Haigh, in closing debate, stressed the need to make a decision in the best interests of residents and rate payers. The immediate neighbour in Augusta Rd, she said, was concerned that the proposed boundary wall would make her place look and feel like a fortress. It is not only the church that matters here, said Haigh.
The vote saw only Briscoe, Christie and Archer supporting the proposal.

Zucco and Sexton were not present having declared their conflict of interest.

Those who voted to refuse the application were Haigh, Burnet, Cocker, Valentine, Ruzicka and Harvey.

State Methadone Program – Best Practice Models for Pharmacies.

Valentine and Burnet absented themselves due to conflict of interest.

It was agreed that the Lord Mayor be requested to write to the Premier supporting efforts by the State Government to promote the application of best practice models for pharmacies currently participating in the methadone program in the Hobart municipal area and potential providers.

Zucco, Elise Archer and Briscoe agreed that the state government is not doing enough in relation to Drug and Alcohol issues. Briscoe suggested that drug dependency and involvement in the methadone program is a health issue and that all clients should be afforded the same level of care whatever the nature of their needs. He made a comparison with pregnant women and the respect shown in delivering health care to them. Haigh objected to the comparison but not to the motion. Harvey wondered if Council should be more pro-active in solving drug and alcohol related problems. He was reminded that this motion came at the end of two years in which Council has been addressing the issue. Much had been achieved including the setting up of a Drug and Alcohol advisory committee on Council at which Harvey’s input would always be welcome.

Taste Festival – Request for Recognition under the Tasmanian Icons Program
This was one of the items that ensured a relatively slender agenda span out to a three and a half hour meeting.

What constitutes an icon, which organizations are on the present list and whether the Taste would have Buckley’s chance of being included were all thrashed out.

It seems that the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra and the Tassie Tigers are definitely icons and receive the State Government’s $500,000 per year grant as a result. Jim Bacon, when Premier, had added the Menzies Centre, whose director Terry Dwyer was quoted as regarding the centre as being part of the program. It does receive the grant, but through the Department of Health not Tourism, which oversees the Icon Program.

Briscoe felt Council’s application would be rejected as the grant amount so neatly dovetails with the combined deficit of The Taste and The Summer Festival. Despite this he was supportive of the motion.

This seemed to escape Zucco’s attention in his furious denunciation of Briscoe’s defeatist attitude. He likened it to firing both barrels of your gun at once leaving nothing in reserve. ‘I’ve never shot anyone,’ demurred Briscoe. This also went unnoticed.

Christie wondered if the Icon Program really exists and whether it has any money but said he would support the application ‘because it’s our 20th anniversary and we should have a go’.

Valentine urged caution in relation to seeking funding into the future as it ran the risk of entailing ownership by the funding body.
The decision to apply for icon status was unanimous.

Review of Annual Allowances Payable in Respect of the Office of Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor and Aldermen

The proposed written submission being put to the Tasmanian Industrial Commission as part of a standard four yearly review was debated.

Most of the discussion hinged on Sexton’s suggested amendment that a total dollar amount be replaced with the suggestion that councilors remuneration be benchmarked against 25% of the workload and remuneration of a Tasmanian House of Assembly back bencher.

Ruzicka had opened debate by saying that she would not equate herself with a politician given that councilors do far more – especially in relation to addressing individual concerns of residents.
She compared the present rate of pay for councilors at $13,089.39 with the $11,000 a single person with no children receives in benefits from Centrelink while seeking work.

Briscoe regarded the submission as good, stressing that councilors do not determine their own allowance, the Commission does.
Sexton expressed the view that it is difficult to calculate what you are worth but that benchmarking processes are now commonly accepted as an appropriate mechanism.

Archer said that the issue was one of workload and that the present rate of remuneration would exclude a large number of people from standing for Council. She felt the submission’s estimate that councilors spend an average 15 hours a week on Council related activities was conservative.

Cocker agreed that councilors having to argue their own case for their own worth was not an edifying experience. He suggested it was best to simply present evidence of workloads and let the Commission make its judgment on remuneration.

Haigh, supported Cocker’s view. She then said there had been innuendos that some councilors work harder than others.
Zucco stood to say that he had not made such comments.

Haigh replied that she had not named him, and that in fact she didn’t think he had been present when the comments were made. She went on to say that she had an abhorrence of appearing to be going after money alone and therefore agreed that focusing on the workload rather than remuneration was the way to go.

At this point Briscoe said that the Commission, having already heard their spoken submissions, had specifically asked councilors to suggest ‘how much we are after and a formula to arrive at that’.
Burnet regarded the submission as an ambit claim. She agreed with Sexton that it’s hard to say what you’re worth, and doubly so if you’re a politician. However, she said, she did not agree with the almost 300% increase suggested.

Burnet also queried the method of deciding on remuneration, suggesting that interested members of the public should also be consulted. She foreshadowed a motion to that effect.

Zucco said he found it annoying ‘that some people on Council don’t understand what’s going on here’. This country, he said, was founded on a fair go. The Commission wanted information and it was lack of it that had led to the great disparity between the remuneration of Lord Mayor, Deputy and the rest of the councilors in the past.

It annoyed Zucco, he said, when the media reported that the Gold Coast Council had given itself a pay rise. That is not what we are doing, he said. We are putting in a submission.

Burnet’s foreshadowed motion was ludicrous, he went on. ‘There are members of the public who think we don’t do anything. I don’t want some-one who doesn’t like Marti Zucco giving their opinion. I don’t need some-one who hasn’t got the expertise to evaluate my workload’.
Valentine felt the situation was no different to that of any employee with a right to put their case. Not only is this a service position, he said, it is a statutory position. We have no choice but to do the work required to deal with applications to council and it is onerous.

We’re just talking about equity here, he said. It’s important that we don’t put the amount in. It’s the industrial commission that sets the rate on the basis of information received. As to having public input, well that is the Commission’s role, he said. It’s a matter of equity – we want the same as other spheres of government with an equal work load.

In closing debate Ruzicka addressed Burnet’s suggestion that the public be included in the submission process.

‘Interested members of the public? They would only be interested in reducing their rates. The suggestion denigrates my work and my position. It’s only since becoming deputy that I’ve been able to do this job full time.

I’m also really irritated as I thought we had consensus – that we were arguing for fair treatment across the board’.

Sexton’s motion to replace the dollar amount with a benchmarking proposal was opposed only by Haigh and Burnett, who were joined by Cocker in opposing the motion to present the submission before them to the Industrial Commission.