Vote no, no and no in absurd poll on Hobart building heights

This type of vote would have tested even Winston Churchill, writes Brian Wightman

IN the Hobart City Council Elector Poll on proposed building heights, the Property Council is unequivocal in its message: Vote “No”, “No” and “No” to the three questions.

On November 11, 1947, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill told the House of Commons: “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.”

Quoting Churchill is challenging due to his role, as First Lord of the Admiralty, in the ill-fated Gallipoli campaign, and his “cannonfodder” view of Australian soldiers during World War II, yet there is no doubt his influence on politics across the globe is synonymous with leadership and strength. The Westminster system of government, the foundation of our democracy, was inherited on January 1, 1901 when six British states became the Commonwealth of Australia.

The Constitution provided the foundation document following colonisation. As a result, Tasmania is represented by 12 senators, five members of the House of Representatives, and 29 local government municipalities enabled through state legislation.

Federal Parliament provides a referendum mechanism for any proposed change to the Constitution and a plebiscite mechanism for non-Constitutional matters. Referendums have included those for Federation; post-war reconstruction; democratic rights, including Aboriginal people in the census and facilitating their vote; and deciding whether our country should become a republic. In 2017, a plebiscite was used to finally pass same-sex marriage legislation. The same mechanism was used in 1916 and 1917 to test the nation’s views on conscription during World War 1.

The states can use similar mechanisms, with Tasmania employing a referendum to approve the first legal casino at Wrest Point in 1968; and to ask a question of the people regarding the Gordon-belowFranklin Dam in 1981, known as the Power Referendum.

Not to be left out, local government elector polls cover issues of council responsibility but importantly, the results are non-binding on elected decision makers.

Elector polls on proposed council amalgamations or on building heights in Hobart’s CBD, the latter currently before ratepayers, are two examples of how this mechanism can be deployed. One can make a strong argument concerning an elector poll for amalgamation as a guide for decision-making. But an elector poll testing the temperature on Hobart’s building heights — well that’s just absurd. Planning decisions regarding development and investment in Hobart’s CBD are not a popularity contest. They need to be evidencebased, requiring expert analysis and statutory decision making by alderman and councillors who are governed by legislation in deliberations regarding development applications. They do not sit as judges in a conscience vote, they are governed by law.

An elector poll can only be called after the collection and presentation of 1000 signatures. The threshold is not high, with the Hobart population standing at 51,750

in 2017. Council officers then liaise with the individual or group proposing the poll and formulate questions that represent the proponent’s, not the council’s, standpoint. The Tasmanian Electoral Commission conducts the poll, in this case on behalf of the Hobart City Council, and there is a substantial cost, $198,000. That’s right, nearly $200,000 of ratepayers’ money for a non-binding poll on one of the most complex pieces of legislation in the state. Just imagine the impact if Hobart Not Highrise was Hobart Not Homelessness.

A sum of $80,000 (excluding HCC officer time, legal advice and public meetings) was also paid to urban design consultant Leigh Woolley to provide a comprehensive report on building heights, which considered a range of factors and suggested heights of up to 75 metres, bringing the recommendations into line with recent council-approved developments such as the Royal Hobart Hospital at 68 metres and the Palace Hotel at 63 metres. Mr Woolley’s report is thorough and has generally been well-received, with the Property Council of Australia proposing a complementary economic analysis of the suggested heights to ensure development viability is not compromised.

Hobart City Council, following leadership by the State Government, paused a decision on amendments to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme after its Planning Committee attempted to ride roughshod over Leigh Woolley’s report and vote up arbitrary and non-evidencebased limits.

Planning Minister Roger Jaensch’s timely intervention to propose a precinct plan as part of the Hobart City Deal was an important step in preventing derailment of proper process. It can be strongly argued that the elector poll has eventuated as the result of a vacuum, with the lack of clear leadership culminating in an ill-informed temperature test via Hobart ratepayers. This form of democracy would have tested even Winston Churchill, and as a result “No”, “No” and “No” are the only logical responses, enabling Hobart City Council to finalise the required evidence to make an appropriate and considered response to proposed changes to regulation of development in our city.