Huon Valley Guessing Games A clash of philosophies, of the Ancients and Moderns of Huon Valley Council, seems inevitable tomorrow evening (April 22).
The Ancients (the three remaining stalwarts of ex-mayor Robert Armstrong’s 13-year rule, aided by a couple of younger-blood first-term councillors) seem to be finding it hard to countenance any decision that could further weaken their already faltering grip on council’s voting pattern. The five seem to be determined that the best way forward is to stay rooted in the past; and that the way to do this is to doggedly cling to the remaining shreds of the valley’s notorious, oft-lampooned, isolationism.
The Moderns, on the other hand, are eager to peer over the Vinces Saddle ramparts and study the ways of that more sophisticated Kingborough mob; in fact, they’re even looking further, to the state capital, where, in November last, Minister for Planning and Local Government Peter Gutwein said he was seeking a “process of investigating voluntary amalgamations”.
Pre-council meeting odds among council observers are that the Ancients will triumph yet again, probably 5-4 (as they did to give the Waterloo Bay bulk-handling/barge proposal council’s blessing at the March 12 “special meeting”). But, who knows, there just might be a weak link in the Ancients’ ranks!
Mayor Peter Coad, elected against the odds last October — much to the chagrin of the old Armstrong brigade — made a brief recce of the Ancients’ ranks last month by putting a “notice of motion” on the March 25 “ordinary meeting” agenda (13.003/15). It had, as its essence, that council — on Coad’s interpretation of a council decision in November last — “recognises the benefits that might accrue to Tasmania through the introduction of structural reform of local government”.
His motion recognised that council’s first preference was to remain “as is”, but that, “should change be proposed”, it would consider “all options”. The mayor’s motion went on to suggest that council should accept Minister Gutwein’s invitation to “participate in undertaking research into possible amalgamations and other models of co-operation . . .” Coad was also asking council to approve “a sum of $25,000 to assist in undertaking the research . . .” and saying that council would “not form a position on the merits of voluntary amalgamations . . . until it has considered the outcomes of the research . . .”
The motion looked reasonable enough, considering that the mayor was only offering a logical sequel to the motion that had won unanimous support at the November 2014 meeting. But Coad’s March motion never got to a vote, the mayor announcing that he was withdrawing it because he had become aware before the meeting that it did not have the support of a majority of councillors.
That move, depending on one’s point of view, could have meant that either (i) Coad had avoided the possibility of being seen as a municipal leader who didn’t have the support of his council, or (ii) that he had decided he didn’t want the Ancients, because of their insularity, to be embarrassed as a consequence of being seen to fail to grasp the olive leaf of a reasonable and progressive proposal — or it might have been for some other reason entirely. Whatever, the mayor’s March motion is now no more than a note in past minutes.
Which brings us to this Wednesday’s meeting, when two “notices of motion” are on the table, one (13.004/15) from Councillor Liz Smith (from the Moderns’ ranks), the other (13.005/15) from Councillor Pav Ruzicka (from the Ancients’ ranks).
Though the motions have much in common, their objectives are radically different.
Smith’s, in the spirit of the abandoned Coad motion, wants council to immediately join discussions with the state government and other councils, and asks for the “allocation of $25,000 in the 2015-2016 budget to match the state government’s contribution to undertaking these studies”
Ruzicka’s, while assuring public participation, appears to be referring to internal council “reports” (or perhaps only one “report”) to be reviewed and updated “to help [council] understand the potential benefits of different types of boundary adjustments”; and asking for “$10,000 to assist with undertaking the review, updating, reporting and engagement as required”.
Smith’s motion encapsulates thoughts and ideas she canvassed last week in a letter to the valley’s two main media publications, Huon Valley News and Cygnet and Channel Classifieds. In that letter, she writes, inter alia: “There is now no doubt that change is being proposed . . . The council should . . . consider all options and proposals . . . to improve its sustainability and services to ratepayers . . .” She points out that other councils — including Hobart City and Kingborough — “have decided to research models which might provide better outcomes . . .”
She looks back: “Here in the Huon Valley we have experienced a half century of dramatic change . . . before the construction of the Southern Outlet [the valley] was remote and difficult to access . . . the valley has changed dramatically, and new residents are living here because they love the natural beauty . . . and road transport to Hobart is easy . . . We don’t predict what changes will take place — all we know is that there will be change . . .”
Cling to the past …
And she looks forward: “One good reason to do the research is the big unknown: how will the state and Australian governments allocate funding to local governments in future? The council’s participation in the consultation process is not a commitment to any predetermined outcome. It is simply a way to be part of discussions on structural reform . . . This may be council’s only way to receive funding benefits towards the research that must be done . . .”
Indicators of council’s clinging to the past are to be found in many of its actions down the years. In 2009, from a field of more than 30 applicants Australia-wide for the position of general manager, a valley-born candidate was judged to be the best of the bunch. The same happened in 2013, when a valley resident got the job ahead of more than 40 applicants Australia-wide and from outside of the country. Both GM’s proved efficient administrators. But lauded as the best from 30-plus and 40-plus fields of candidates? Those two decisions raised a few eyebrows around the valley.
A few meetings back, council was looking for someone to serve on one of its advisory bodies. Mayor Coad, tongue-in-cheek, suggested someone like Twiggy Forrest might be available if council were willing to advertise the position Australia-wide. Two Ancients leapt in to assure council and public gallery that there was more than enough talent in the valley for it to be necessary to look elsewhere.
And then there is council’s recently formed audit panel. Who should the majority voting bloc appoint as the two councillor members on the panel? Two of its own, of course, including the most passionate champion and defender of council’s “sound” financial position.
And, when the bloc really couldn’t bring itself to appoint any of the valley applicants for the two outside-appointee positions to the audit panel, it chose two (seemingly perfectly well qualified) people who also happen to be members of other Tasmanian council audit panels. Appointment of suitably qualified experts with absolutely no local-government ties would have been much more acceptable in the eyes of this ratepayer who has long wanted to see council’s financial condition independently assessed, starting by looking into the loss of a cool $4 million or so of taxpayers’ money during the GFC.
It would be reassuring to be able to report, after Wednesday’s meeting, that compromise had been achieved; that the Ancients and Moderns had had a meetings of minds; and that Huon Valley Council had decided that it would waste no more time in reaching out to the real world and interacting with people from over the saddle and far beyond in search of a better deal for everyone subject to local government’s charges and inconsistent schemes and regulations. We can only hope.
Bob Hawkins, a Huon Valley ratepayer, is a close friend of Cr Liz Smith.
• Bob Hawkins, in Comments: For the record: At Wednesday evening’s meeting of council, six of the voters’ elected representatives decided that — on the subject of the best way for Huon Valley Council to make its way in an era of profound economic and social change — it was in the best interests of the municipality’s ratepayers and residents to drop the portcullis, raise the drawbridge and resist the approaches and inducements of anyone from the outside world. I suppose it was about all that the municipality deserves: such is the apathy towards the importance of local government, only about a dozen were in the public gallery to listen to a long and sometimes constructive debate on one of the most important valley issues since the merging of its three councils in 1993. Mayor Peter Coad and Cr Liz Smith (independents) and Cr Rosalie Woodruff (Greens) valiantly — but in vain — tried to explain that all they were asking for was for HVC to join Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein and other councils in a conversation about the pros and cons of inter-council co-operation and resource-sharing, and whether there might just be merit in some sort of mergers or boundary changes. …
