The Huon Valley Council recently concluded its “Hall Review Committee Information Sessions,” presenting what it describes as a new, improved management model for our community halls.
Promising reduced risks, streamlined operations, and greater community activation, the Council’s vision outlines a significant shift from the long-standing volunteer-run committee system to a more centralised, Council-administered approach.
Tasmanian Times has been provided with an edited version of the documents which were presented to the current community hall committees at a meeting on Saturday 19 May 2025.
The meeting followed Council’s comprehensive 2024 Halls Review, which included the voices of 138 community meeting participants and 92 survey respondents.
But as the details emerge from the extensive Q&A sessions and official communications, a closer look reveals a complex transition that prompts questions about genuine community empowerment versus the consolidation of bureaucratic control.
As a concerned local ratepayer in the Huon Valley, this article delves into the specifics of the Council’s proposed changes, exploring the implications for local volunteers, community autonomy, and the very identity of our beloved halls.
While the Huon Valley Council promises consistency, equity, and accessibility, the dismantling of long-standing, volunteer-run committees and the centralisation of control raise questions about genuine community ownership and the potential for a disconnect between local needs and bureaucratic oversight.
The Council champions ‘minimising physical and social risks’ and ‘improving operational efficiency’ as key benefits. However, for many, the decades of dedicated volunteer work by hall committees have demonstrated an inherent understanding of local risks and efficient, community-driven operations.
Will a centralised Council approach truly replicate the nuanced, on-the-ground management that local volunteers have historically provided?
The promise of ‘reducing stress levels, allowing community members to remain more engaged and motivated’ rings hollow for those who find purpose and community in the very ‘administrative responsibilities’ the Council is now absorbing. For many, managing bookings, finances, and maintenance wasn’t a burden, but an act of stewardship and a direct connection to their community’s assets.
Shifting these tasks to Council staff might relieve some, but it also strips away a significant avenue for direct community control and engagement.
Friends of the Hall — A Compromise or a Diminished Role?
The proposed ‘Friends of the Hall’ groups are presented as the new avenue for community involvement. While well-intentioned, this model raises concerns. Will these informal groups truly possess the same influence and autonomy as the disbanded formal committees?
Council states they will ‘focus on community activation and events,’ effectively relegating them to event organisers rather than active managers of their local spaces.
The question of financial control for these ‘Friends of’ groups also remain murky. While existing funds might be returned to formally structured groups, the emphasis on Council controlling core finances for the halls themselves suggests a significant loss of local financial autonomy.
This shift could mean that funds raised through community efforts, previously managed by local committees, will now be filtered through Council’s accounting, potentially losing their immediate local impact.
The Q&A sessions highlighted a perceived desire from committees to offload administration.
While this may be true for some, it’s crucial to acknowledge the immense local knowledge and expertise residing within our committees – expertise that goes far beyond processing bookings. Who will now answer specific queries about unique hall features, or understand the subtle needs of long-term hirers?
The response, ‘Council’s Property Services Unit,’ suggests a generic, potentially impersonal, approach.
The concern at Judbury about insufficient Council staff to change a lightbulb on a high ceiling, acknowledged by Council as a ‘comment,’ underscores a deeper anxiety that centralisation might lead to a slower, less responsive maintenance system compared to dedicated local committees.
Similarly, the Ranelagh community’s concern about the Council taking over assets once paid for by local families is a stark reminder of historical community contributions. While the Council reassures that no halls are planned for sale, the power dynamic has irrevocably shifted.
The community must now ‘rally again by using the halls’ – an implied plea to use them, rather than a continued partnership in their direct management.
The promise of quarterly reports on hall usage, income, and expenditure is a welcome step towards transparency, but it’s a reactive measure. True community oversight and proactive engagement would involve continuous, two-way dialogue, not just post-facto reporting.
While the Council aims for ‘consistent and equitable management,’ the fear is that ‘standardisation’ could inadvertently stifle the very ‘unique identity of each hall and community’ that the Council claims to want to preserve. Real consistency shouldn’t mean a bland uniformity that ignores the distinct flavour and needs of each local space.
As the Huon Valley transitions to this new model, the burden of proof lies squarely with the Council.
They must now demonstrate that this centralised approach will indeed foster stronger community networks and vibrant hall activation, without eroding the invaluable sense of local ownership and direct participation that has defined our halls for generations.
This isn’t about fostering community; it’s about consolidation.
The Huon Valley Council is systematically stripping away local autonomy under the guise of efficiency and risk management.
The ‘Friends of the Hall’ model is not a partnership; it’s a new chain of command.
The true challenge now for Huon Valley communities is not just to ‘activate’ their halls, but to find a way to maintain any semblance of independent voice and influence in a system increasingly controlled from above. Don’t cheer; be wary.
Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse view of Tasmanian issues. TT creates and supports independent media content utilising the best of modern technologies and tried-and-true practices of public-interest journalism.
Support us in expanding our coverage and developing new content by and for Tasmanians.
New initiatives on the way include:
- a weekly podcast covering current affairs
- a revamped website
- a monthly cartoon competition
- a user-friendly app for both Android and Apple devices
- a weekly roundup of key stories
Declaration of Interest
Since 2015 Geoffrey Swan has been actively involved in following the activities of the Huon Valley Council both as a resident and ratepayer of the Huon Valley, and as a journalist and contributing editor with Tasmanian Times.
Swan is currently under a 12 month sanction of the recently introduced Managing Unacceptable Customer Behaviour Policy because of his ‘unreasonably persistent requests for information’ with any future communications now centrally administered and managed by the Office of General Counsel, then tasked to the appropriate Department for attention with a response issued within the response times set out in the Customer Service Charter from the office of General Counsel.
Swan has attended almost all of the HVC Ordinary Meetings of Council in person and in recent times since COVID, attendance has been via the online streaming of the meetings.
