Council candidates with forum organisers at Franklin’s Palais Theatre on Monday (October 10). Back row, from left: Amy Robertson, Rosalie Woodruff, Richard Herr (facilitator), Bruce Heron, Martin Riddell (time keeper); front row: Liz Smith, Michael Foley, Peter Pepper.
Did he squib it? Was it a show of contempt for his constituents?
Is he so sure of his incumbency that he doesn’t feel it necessary to elucidate in person why he believes he is fit to lead the Huon Valley Council?
Or did the valley’s real estate salesman mayor, Robert Armstrong, leader of the controlling Futures Group (FG), have a valid reason for not showing up at the Meet the Candidates Forum on Monday evening? A public statement from him explaining his failure to attend the forum would be helpful, and a mark of respect to voters.
Some of the same might be said about other councillors, including “independent” mayoral aspirant Mike Wilson; and Gary Doyle, who is seeking re-election as councillor as well as trying (seemingly not-too-vigorously) to oust fellow Futures Group colleague Bruce Heron from his deputy mayor’s job. (At Wednesday night’s monthly council meeting (October 12), not a single FG councillor, or Wilson, felt it necessary to explain why they had not attended the candidates’ forum.)
A spokesman for the Franklin Progress Association, which arranged the forum at Franklin’s Palais Theatre, did say apologies had been received from all no-show candidates; and a member of the audience told me later that Wilson had sent a letter of apology that he had asked to be read out at the forum.
A ratepayer who attended the forum, while observing that the non-appearance of the mayor and other FG candidates was an affront to voters, said: “Armstrong and Wilson didn’t do themselves any harm in not turning up. There were few if any votes for them in the largely blow-in audience.”
Another said of the failure of all FG councillor candidates except Bruce Heron to attend: “It’s hard to say whether this is due to arrogance, or resentment that someone should have the temerity to ask them to get up and explain their vision and display their skills at the job. It could also be fear.”
Whatever the reasons, it was a poor show on the part of a political grouping that comfortably controls all council decisions. The other missing FG councillor seeking re-election was Ian Paul. (FG councillors Tony Duggan and Rohan Gudden are halfway through their four-year terms.)
Councillor Wilson’s position is enigmatic. More often than not he votes along Futures Group lines, yet he insists he is “independent”; and much of his campaign material is “authorised” by Forestry Tasmania staffer Peter Pepper, who, standing as an independent councillor candidate, made no bones about believing that any councillor seeking a third term — FG or Green — should give up and “get a life”. Nor did Pepper hide his disdain for the sitting council or for a water and sewerage “bureaucracy that isn’t working now”. Although he is openly allied with Councillor Wilson, he said it was the mayor who had asked him to stand. It’s a complex web that is the “old Huon” side of council.
Whether Wilson is in or out of the Futures Group, his candidacy almost certainly ensures the re-election of Armstrong as mayor. Wilson is highly unlikely to match the mayor’s primary vote — or, for that matter, the primary vote for Liz Smith — but if the Greens’ Smith polls well enough on primaries to run second to Armstrong, Wilson’s preferences will consolidate the mayor’s re-election count.
(With the loony right nationally whipping up anti-Greens sentiment, Smith will do well to hold her support at the level of the 37% primary vote (40% after preferences) she got when she ran for deputy mayor in 2009. In 2005, she gained only 23 per cent of the primary vote in the mayoral contest. There is also likely to be adverse reaction to the Greens over the now postponed schools-closure proposals that state Labor obviously had decided on before handing the poisoned chalice of the Education portfolio to Greens leader Nick McKim earlier this year. It’s amazing that McKim has maintained a stiff upper lip and made his party absorb the punishment for what is yet another consequence of a decade of state Labor incompetence. The Greens should rue the day McKim threw in his lot with David Bartlett’s Labor mob, and then continued to hang in there when Lara Giddings took over.)
ALTOGETHER, six mayoral, deputy-mayoral and councillor aspirants faced their inquisitors at Franklin Progress Association’s forum: The FG’s Heron and councillor aspirant Amy Robertson; independent candidate and former state Greens MP Michael Foley (advocate of Smith for mayor); Pepper, former Esperance and Huon Valley councillor (advocate of Wilson for mayor); and Greens councillors Smith (seeking re-election as councillor and challenging Armstrong for mayor) and Rosalie Woodruff (challenging Heron for deputy mayor).
The candidates that did show up acquitted themselves fairly well, although Heron seemed uncomfortable and lost for words at times, and was — as his fellow Futures Group councillors usually are — light on “vision”.
There is hope the FG’s luddite habits could be diluted if Robertson knocks off one of the sitting FG councillors. She shows signs of being what the FG needs if it is to achieve the generational and inspirational change its lacklustre (one forum observer prefers “deadwood”) councillors desperately need if they are to be coaxed into accepting that this is, indeed, the 21st century; and that, whether they realise it or not, they are living in a new and treacherous economic and environmental climate. Paul may be more vulnerable than Doyle.
The candidates were asked to speak in random order:
AMY ROBERTSON, in her address, sounded a conciliatory note that might not sit too well with a mayor who, I believe, thrives on divisive politics. Having recently lost her job as a consequence of contraction in the forestry industry, Robertson radiates an acceptance that we are in an era of great change and that co-operation with those of other philosophical inclinations is necessary if the people of the Huon Valley are to regroup and come up with ideas that will, sustainably, revitalise their vulnerable economy and, at the same time, protect the natural beauty of the municipality.
It would have been a tonic to all on Monday at the Palais if Mayor Armstrong had been present and had chosen to speak in support of the freshness of Robertson’s approach. She appears to be a person who, should she win a place at the council table, would not always suffer gladly the head-in-the-sand behaviour of her visionless Futures Group colleagues.
LIZ SMITH came out with a couple of surprises to accompany her assertions that it was a “crucial time for leadership in the valley” and that the level of accountability of councillors had increased greatly.
First, she revealed she had taken a case to the Anti-Discrimination Commission, and this had resulted in a majority of councillors committing to governance training.
Her complaint had been that, as a result of discrimination on grounds of political affiliation and gender, she had been given no senior responsibilities under the council’s portfolio system despite her qualifications and long experience as a councillor. From what she had to say, it seems council is reappraising its portfolio system.
Second, Smith told the meeting that the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) had gone along with her views on what constitutes a boundary adjustment by publishing a clarifying definition.
This is an issue that has long had Smith at loggerheads with the Futures Group. It was clear for any observer to note that, on occasions, the FG bloc, against staff advice, was approving “boundary adjustments” that, in reality, were subdivisions. The TPC’s ruling might help to put a stop to this sloppy approach to due process by the FG.
Or will it? Now that boundary adjustments have become a “permitted use” (which means they no longer have to be advertised and do not have to go before council), who will know what is approved? Smith, at Wednesday night’s council meeting, tried to get all plans for boundary adjustments tabled at full council after their approval. The Futures Group would have none of that.
Two of the FG’s most glaring planning errors in the past year involved council approval of “boundary adjustment” applications at Castle Forbes Bay (moved for approval by Wilson, seconded by Doyle) and on the Channel Highway at Cygnet (moved by Gudden, seconded by Doyle).
Both these decisions were made against the advice of council planning staff; both were subsequently overturned by the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal (RMPAT). The appeal against the Castle Forbes Bay decision is thought to have cost council about $10,000. Armed with the benefit of hindsight, council did not contest the appeal against its Channel Highway decision.
It is understandable that councillors wish to support people who want to realise the value of portions of their land. The two mentioned cases — because they were contested by representors who believed council had made a misjudgement — offer a lesson to all councillors.
Heron, in his candidates’ forum observations, touched on the dilemma councillors face when making planning decisions in cases where landholders are trying to finance their retirement by selling off a small portion of their land. At least the TPC boundary-adjustment definition will help de-confuse this contentious area.
Summing up Smith’s presentation, a member of the audience said later: “Smith is still the only one who was there who has a real handle on the balance that must be struck between listening to people and acting for them in council within council’s actual brief.”
The same person said: “This is why I imagine people like Robert [Armstrong] and Ian Paul don’t come to meetings like this — they don’t really have the skills to do the job properly; and the fact that they don’t becomes very obvious up against the likes of Smith & Co. Bruce [Heron] is a nice man and, to my mind, quite courageous to front up.”
BRUCE HERON, in his presentation, spoke of council activities including in the field of long-term financial planning, health care and waste management. And he acknowledged that talk of local government reorganisation is in the air.
MICHAEL FOLEY observed that the strength of the Huon Valley had been reduced and that “we are too disparate”. He welcomed the prospect of Smith as a “full-time mayor” for the valley.
PETER PEPPER complained that there is not enough turnover of councillors. This caused one ratepayer observer to comment later: “That depends on whether they’re any good or not. If they’re good, you don’t want them turned over.” The same ratepayer also said: “I wouldn’t agree with Peter Pepper about much, but he’s intelligent and experienced and reasonably good-natured — and you can argue with him.” Another ratepayer said: “Any of the new candidates we saw last night would be an improvement on the incumbents, so I hope they receive support.” The same observer noted that either of the would-be mayors would be a better option than the return of Armstrong. Another said: “I was pleasantly surprised at both Robertson and Pepper, and both would be marked improvements.”
ROSALIE WOODRUFF commented that the election was a contest of skills rather than a contest of values. This, said a ratepayer in the audience, was the “most incisive comment of the evening for me”. Woodruff took the line that the ideas should come largely from the community, which should then implement them with the help of council. Visionary? Maybe. Practical? The doubters would be many.
A BRIEF question session followed the candidates’ presentations:
Franklin waterfront: Even candidates not au fait with the circumstances seemed supportive of a structured redevelopment. There was no support for residential development. A member of the audience saw “the elephant” on the waterfront — the for-sale apple shed — as a home for a boat museum. The shed, said Foley, was an “incredible resource”, and that meetings with the owners were ongoing. Smith suggested council could provide seed funding for a business plan for the waterfront. Heron, though resisting an opinion, thought council might help with grants.
Tourism: Ambivalence prevailed. The Greens candidates saw it as a “double-edged sword” and vulnerable to fluctuations in the tourist market. Smith suggested by directing efforts towards agricultural niche projects these would also be tourist drawcards; and for council to support “what people are already doing”. Pepper thought the valley was “not well represented” in the tourism stakes. Foley said the valley could prosper “if we all work together”. Robertson said the people of the valley should be “welcoming to visitors”.
Youth amenities: Woodruff thought primary school children were “pretty well serviced” but more needed to be done for high school students. Heron said “perhaps council needs to allocate more funds to help high school groups”. Foley said the way to help youngsters was to give them “the prospect of work”. Smith saw flexible community transport as a way to encourage youngsters to become more engaged in valley activities.
Climate change: Foley: “We are blind to the fact that we are going to run out of food-producing land.” Pepper: “This debate has been running 30 years. A lot of people out there are confused by it.” More leadership was needed from the federal level, he said. Woodruff: “Ninety-eight per cent of scientists support the reality of climate change . . . We should be out there and grasping the nettle.” Robertson: “We can bring this back to people working together to use our resources better.” Heron: “We could be self-sufficient at some stage.” Agricultural land should be protected, he said. Smith was acutely aware of peak oil, population pressures and food demands. All these “crises are going to hit,” she said. “We must be as self-sufficient in food production as possible.”
Councillor pro-activity: The questioner appeared scornful of councillors’ work levels, talking of out-of-date signage around the valley pointing to an information centre and tourism ventures that no longer exist. That was a hard one for sitting councillors. And it was difficult for them not to make their responses look self-serving. Sufficient to say there’s a lot of work councillors do — such as attending many and various meetings and keeping council staff on their toes — that is never visible. And the ear-bashing they must get from the public must at times be hard to suffer.
SITTING alone watching proceedings was HVC general manager Glenn Doyle, now two years into the job. After hearing a few nice things said about him, he slipped away minutes before the forum ended. Said one audience member: “It was a good sign that Glenn Doyle came along, and also that he didn’t say anything, and wasn’t making signals and pointing at people like Geoff [Cockerill — Doyle’s predecessor] used to do.”
Noteworthy: the three women candidates who attended have scientific backgrounds.
THE FRANKLIN PROGRESS ASSOCIATION’S initiative in organising an event at which candidates could face the people was a worthy one. It’s disappointing so few turned up (about 50) to hear the candidates. Apathy is a great enemy of democracy. And it’s an indictment of the commitment of some councillors to their responsibility to be responsive to the public that so few of them attended the forum. Even those councillors not standing could have shown a bit of respect by turning up and listening, especially to the question session. And it’s a great shame that the mayor, our civic leader, failing to recognise the intrinsic merit of such an event, either chose not to attend or failed to explain his absence. One person at the forum was not surprised: “Robert Armstrong? I didn’t expect him to come.”
Armstrong’s failure to attend or explain his absence strengthens the instinct of those who feel he is not the person the Huon Valley needs at the helm of municipal affairs in the critical years that lie ahead; that he’s not the person to venture forth from the valley to negotiate, on our behalf, with all those out there who, in one way or another, can be of assistance to the sustainable development of the valley.
On Wednesday night (October 12), at council’s monthly meeting, he was at his authoritarian, abrasive best/worst. “Through the chair,” his demand frequently sounded — but selectively: it all depended, it seemed, on who it was that had the temerity to ignore the chair beneath him that gives him his authority. On one occasion, after several reminders to him that Councillor Wilson was berating Councillor Woodruff while she had the floor (with repeated demands as to how many times she had attended Cygnet Township Committee meetings), he intervened, but only to tell Woodruff to answer Wilson’s question. This, rightly, she chose to ignore. Earlier, in public question time, Armstrong had resorted to his usual distracting tactic of butting in within seconds of a public questioner starting to explain why they were asking a question. Then, later, after demanding to know of Cr Smith why she had made a particular point, he immediately turned to converse with general manager Glenn Doyle while Smith was patiently explaining her reasons. It was a grumpy mayor on Wednesday night, a man determined to show everyone who was boss. Surely he couldn’t have been worried that he might have been attending his last council meeting as mayor!
(On a technical point, Cr Wilson should be reminded that there have only ever been about three meetings of Cygnet Township Committee (CTC). Before that, they were meetings of the “Cygnet Township Development Committee”. But the idea of allowing simple municipal commoners to have “development” responsibilities obviously proved a bit too scary to cope with, so council dropped the word from the titles of the tame, handpicked, unrepresentative and legally powerless township committees around the municipality. It’s true Woodruff attended neither of the CTC’s first two meetings. Nevertheless, I believe, in her two years as a councillor, she has contributed more to constructive governance than most of the members of the FG put together.)
It should also be noted that, after becoming mayor, Armstrong changed occupations: from being a cafe proprietor to being a seller of real estate. His position today, as head of the elected council, obviously makes him privy to information about land developments ahead of all competitors in his field of professional endeavour. It is not unreasonable, therefore — even though I am in no way questioning the mayor’s honesty or integrity — for democratically minded people (especially those who believe that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done; and who believe that government at all levels must not only be proper but be seen to be proper) to ponder whether a mayor can also be, say, a developer, a journalist or real estate seller, without giving those democratically minded people thoughts — real or imagined — that undermine their confidence in the quality of municipal governance.
Bob Hawkins is a Huon Valley ratepayer and an advocate for transparency in all democratic institutions. He is not a member of a political organisation. He makes no secret of the fact that he is a friend of Greens councillors Liz Smith and Rosalie Woodruff, and more often than not supports the policies they promote as councillors.
