HCC: Gosford hasn’t got the same pulling power…

Margot Giblin

Half of the total of twelve Hobart City Councillors are now visiting France this summer at Council expense. They are Rob Valentine, Peter Sexton, Ron Christie, Jeff Briscoe, Helen Burnet and Marti Zucco (side trip). Rob Valentine’s wife, Margaret Laird Valentine, and one officer are also part of the fully funded Council delegation to Brest.

Gosford does not appear to have same pulling power.
Hobart City Council

Open Meeting

Monday 23 June 08

5pm

Councilors Present: Lord Mayor Rob Valentine, Deputy Lord Mayor Eva Ruzicka, Philip Cocker, Bill Harvey, Elise Archer, Helen Burnet, John Freeman, Jeff Briscoe, Darlene Haigh

Leave of Absence: Marti Zucco, Peter Sexton

Some Agenda Items:

Question Time: Barry Brannan asked how many Council personnel were involved in the clean up of cans and bottles weekly. The precise breakdown wasn’t available but an average of 271 worker hours per week is spent on the collection of litter by Council.

The Budget Estimates Speech for 08/09 was delivered by Valentine.

Cocker responded by saying it was a budget of the past. Its heavy investment in bringing more car parking into the CBD was based on the days of cheap petrol.

He expected the present rate of change in petrol costs to continue and urged Council to develop a budget strategy that acknowledged this. He advocated cheap and efficient access to the city. He predicted that Hobart will be hampered by the proposed car parking investments which represent ‘putting too many eggs in one basket’.

Haigh congratulated the officers who had prepared the budget, which she considered to be fair and reasonable.

The budget was accepted with the required absolute majority but without the support of the Greens – Cocker, Harvey and Burnet.

6 Heathorn Avenue ,Sandy Bay was given permission for demolition and the building of a new house and front fence.

308-310 Davey St. Hobart (Jane Franklin Hall) was not allowed its original request for signage on the basis that residents were rightly concerned about commercialisation of the area and failure to meet heritage value requirements. Council agreed to a compromise solution.

694-696 Sandy Bay Rd, Sandy Bay was refused its application for demolition of two houses and outbuildings and the erection of four new houses and front fencing.

The public gallery was packed. It was largely made up of residents wearing Save Precinct 33 signs.

They heard Ruzicka’s objections to the proposal which, she said, would overhang the escarpment. There was also concern about density and the effect on both street and sea scapes. Officers had recommended refusal.

Burnet’s major concern was the bulk of the proposed buildings which would affect the amenity of neighbours.

Harvey’s concerns included work already being done on the site. He felt the development would not enhance the neighbourhood. As we protect the skyline, so we should protect the sea line, he said. He referred to the possibility of slippage and future erosion, urging caution in setting a precedent.

Christie asked precisely what loss of amenity was alluded to, querying the suggestion that there would be overshadowing of neighbours. He confirmed that a geo technological survey had been done. It stated that the site should be able to accommodate the proposed buildings.

Freeman said the development’s future would not be decided by Council but would go to Tribunal.

Valentine said a site visit had shown that the development would be 13-18 metres back from the escarpment. The main issue was bulk, as it impacted both on street and sea side. He said the proposed style of building was different to the rest of the street. While Council’s role was not to make value judgements on architectural merit this development would, unfortunately, change the character of the area significantly.

The proposal was refused, with Elise Archer, Freeman and Christie dissenting.

Annual Review of Parking Fees and Charges 08/09 – On and Off Street Parking and Parking Enforcement. Argyle and Centrepoint Car Parks’ second hour will rise from 60c to $1.00 and Hobart Central’s from 50c to 80c. The first hour remains free.

Freeman said that recent CBD traders’ view that Council’s fees would ‘drive people out’, were extraordinarily short sighted. Give them free parking all day, he said, and you will have it taken over by commuters. The aim is to keep the spaces for shoppers by encouraging turn over.

Elise Archer referred to a long term strategy to accommodate all day parking at sites such as the Domain.

Valentine said it was commendable to consider improving access to the city by such means as improved public transport. However, Council could not do this alone. In the meantime he felt the increases were a sensible decision.

The increases were accepted unanimously.

Aldermanic Side Trip to Denmark – Exploration of Pedestrian and Cycling Friendly Linkages and Infrastructure.

Christie expressed his pleasure in moving this, given that its recipient had queried Zucco’s side trip to the Taste of London.

Burnet had come to realise, he said, that sometimes these things do benefit the community.

The cost of Burnet’s visit to Denmark will be $1,500. It was passed unanimously.

Salamanca Market – Tasmanian Gay law Reform Group Stall 1988

The suggestion that Council apologise and acknowledge the wrongs of its actions in relation to its attempt to close down the stall and the arrest of its supporters caused heated debate.

Valentine absented himself to avoid conflict of interest and Ruzicka took the chair. Before debate started she reminded councillors that the aim was reconciliation.

Burnet gave what amounted to a speech in opening debate in support of the proposal. (See below)

Freeman then moved for a deferral. He suggested a report be followed by a workshop.

Briscoe objected that this would close debate.

Ruzicka ruled that she would not accept deferral.

Haigh protested that she had been assured that the matter of an apology would not be debated here, openly, in the chamber but in a better manner, elsewhere.

She was a councillor at the time of Council’s intervention, since when things had changed. Haigh vehemently objected to the suggestion that Council had acted in response to one anonymous phone call.

She wished she had her relevant notes with her but having been told there would be no debate she had left them at home. They related to numerous phone calls and complaints.

I can assure you, she said, that what was handed out at that stall was not what you would have expected, twenty years ago.

‘It hadn’t been decriminalized and so anyone could have taken the Council to court for dereliction of duty. Doesn’t anyone realise that?’

I am sick and tired of what goes on in this Council, she said. This has been hi-jacked. I wanted to discuss this in a proper way. It’s impossible in this Chamber. What is happening now is a form of discrimination.

Briscoe hoped the matter could be dealt with in the spirit of reconciliation. This meant accepting opposing points of view. ‘We are not looking to blame. We do not need a workshop to decide what to do. Perhaps the wording of the apology may need to be workshopped’.

Christie, referring to Haigh’s assertion that Council acted legally at the time, asked for officer confirmation of this.

Mr Noyes’ answer was that Council was acting on legal advice given at the time. Christie didn’t feel this had quite answered his question but moved on to suggest deletion of the words ‘wrongs of its actions’ in relation to 1988 while supporting an apology from Council.

Cocker supported Christie’s amendment, saying this issue was more about the effects the actions had on the people involved than about who was right or wrong.

The apology is about acknowledging and addressing the hurt caused, he said. It’s not about bashing those who made the decision. It’s about healing not blaming.

The motion was amended to say ‘Make an apology with the final wording to be approved by both parties prior to the event’.

Harvey said he found it easy to say sorry despite not having been involved at the time.

Freeman said he and Haigh were the only present councillors serving at the time and had an accurate memory of what happened. He described Mr Noyes answer as to the legality of Council’s actions as ‘philosophical, like a fairy on the head of a pin’.

Freeman went on to say that he could say ‘I regret’ but not ‘I’m sorry’ .

It was the early days of AIDS, Freeman continued, which was not well understood. It was a time of high risk behaviours being disseminated.

‘ I think it’s unfortunate that this debate is taking place here. I wanted us to discuss it calmly. I thought my actions medically correct at the time. I regret that this has been ventilated here. I won’t vote for it. It puts me in an intolerable position’.

Ruzicka said she was on the other side at the time, having supported the stall holders.

She would not accept ‘gagging’ of the debate now. She felt it was wonderful that Council had reached this stage and that Christie’s amendment gave them a way through. We need Freeman and Haigh’s input, she said.

The amendment and the motion were carried with Haigh and Freeman voting No.

At the call of votes Haigh declared that she had been ‘Sold down the drain’.

Code of Conduct -Report from the Standards panel of 26 May 2008

A report was tabled which stated that late in October 2007, Alderman Marti Zucco wrote to the Deputy Lord Mayor of Hobart alleging a breach of Standard of Conduct #2 – No Bias in Decision-making in the Aldermanic Code of Conduct by another Alderman.

The complainant alledged that the Alderman did not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to Agenda Item 11 – Reimbursement of Legal Expenses – Alderman Zucco (file ref 13-2-1) determined at the Council meeting on 24 September 2007.

The Standards panel determined that the alderman did not breach the standard and dismissed the complaint.

2008 Sister Cities Association National Conference – Gosford, NSW

Aldermanic nominations were called for this event. Zucco and Christie’s names had been put forward but Christie said he would be unable to attend.

Haigh said she just wanted to ‘flag up that there was public concern about the number of trips councillors are taking’. She said there was a name before them that kept coming up and she felt they ought to be careful and mindful of who is paying for all this.

Elise Archer said that Zucco hadn’t put his own name forward but had been nominated by the Community Development Committee in his absence and was yet to be confirmed. She did however agree with Haigh’s other comments.

Comment.

In TT Summer in Europe I said that Zucco and Sexton’s trips to Brest are financially independent of Council. They are not.

Peter Sexton’s trip to Brest is being paid for by Council. It will cost $11,000 and includes business class travel, accommodation and expenses. It does not coincide with the Council delegation to the Maritime Festival.

Zucco’s side trip to Brest (from his own trip to Europe) is Council funded and also predates the festival. In addition he is being funded for a second side trip, to the London Taste.

The cost of Sexton and Zucco’s side trips will be posted when received from Council.

Half of the total of twelve Hobart City Councillors are now visiting France this summer at Council expense. They are Rob Valentine, Peter Sexton, Ron Christie, Jeff Briscoe, Helen Burnet and Marti Zucco (side trip). Rob Valentine’s wife, Margaret Laird Valentine, and one officer are also part of the fully funded Council delegation to Brest.

Gosford does not appear to have same pulling power.

Helen Burnet’s opening to debate on the apology requested by the Coming Out Proud Program Greater Hobart Community Liaison Committee’s as part of a raft of initiatives to mark the 20th anniversary of the prohibition of the Tasmanian Gay Law Reform Group at the Salamanca Market in September 1988.

The actions of others past may sometimes be revered, at other times reviled, but we learn from history, or we are fools.

Lord Mayor, 20 years in October 1988 there was an air for significant social change in Tasmania in relation to the rights of Gay & lesbians.

1988 was not that long ago, but back then it was a crime to be gay in Tasmania. The mainland states and most of the western world had decriminalised homosexuality years before and so it was that there was a push for Tasmania to also change its outdated laws. How was it that people could face imprisonment because of their sexual orientation?

In 1988 the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group had a stall at the Salamanca markets. They were collecting signatures for a petition to end the discrimination inherent in Tasmanian law.

One of the things that I love about Salamanca is that I can wander down the aisles and see woodcarvers, artisans, flower growers, hippies, craftspeople, knitters, jewelers, booksellers, musicians side by side, who have a diversity of background, social interests and political followings, but who make up the face of a creative Tasmania. To me, Salamanca embodies tolerance and the celebration of difference, and it is why people are attracted there from around the world and from down the road.

And yet back in 1988, on the strength of one complaint, Council decided to ban the Tasmanian Gay & Lesbian Rights Group stall. 130 people were illegally arrested. I believe that this decision was based on discrimination. The Salamanca arrests were seen as pivotal in the campaign to throw out anti-gay legislation, and in that way publicized and helped gain support from the broader community. But it was an unwelcome way to gain attention in which the Hobart City Council at the time played a part.

These arrests and the closure of the stall can be seen now for what they were: a threat to the freedom of speech and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Our Council, of which we are its elected representatives has prided itself on initiatives of social inclusion, of tolerance, of equality. Our strategic plan, which should be referred to more often than we tend to in this Chamber embodies many of these objectives, as a reflection of the way Tasmania and the city of Hobart’s citizens have moved in opinion, and how they see the shape of their city to be now and into the future.

Lord Mayor, I commend this motion from committee, which has come from the Council’s very own LGBTI advisory group, and endorsed by the community development committee. The amendment to the 2nd clause of the motion seeks the council to work with the parties in order to come to a mutually agreeable wording, which effectively includes aldermen should they wish to be involved, so any proposal to move this to an aldermanic workshop for appropriate wording would to mind be superfluous.

I urge all aldermen to consider the implications of any delay to this motion and its ramifications. Are we a Council that finds it too hard to say sorry? Are we unable to acknowledge the mistakes of the past and how that affected those involved then?

20 years on, there is plenty to commemorate for the people who may have come out for the first time, who were labelled and vilified by members of the broader Tasmanian community at the time, and who were trying to achieve equal rights for gay and lesbian Tasmanians, and change to Tasmania’s arcane, discriminatory anti-Gay laws.

The people involved back in 1988 who were aggrieved by the decision of the Council at the time deserve an apology.

I believe that we also owe an apology on behalf of those Council officers who were tasked with defending the decision. We know that this was for many council officers involved at the time something they did not support, a very trying time.

Even if it were legal to close the stall at the time, in hindsight it was wrong. It takes plenty of courage to recognise the wrongs of the past, but an even more courageous person to go that step further and say sorry outright.

I hereby move the motion.