It’s up to all of us to make sure Hobart City Council is not just going through the motions

Detail was sadly missing when the HCC released a new governance model, writes Marti Zucco

DEFENDING the indefensible is happening thick and fast in our current Hobart City Council deliberations of the new governance model foisted on the Hobart community in the past few weeks.

Introducing the new structure without the detail, which is what has occurred, is by no means best practice. It’s like buying a property and paying the full amount upfront, with all contract and other legal details filtering through later.

Disappointingly I knew this would occur and told elected members as much. Indeed, a video from the very first planning meeting said it all when an elected member confessed that he didn’t know what the structure would mean, apologised for not listening and admitted he must have been asleep when the new structure was presented and approved.

Also disappointingly, it seems some elected members failed to do their research on the governance structure and are now seeing it for what it is. A simple review of the boards of inquiry into similar structures show they have failed both here and in New Zealand.

Glenorchy tried it and failed. There were three major inquiries: the Huon Council 2015 report, the Geelong Council 2016 report and the New Zealand Ombudsman inquiry in August this year into eight councils and the recent community concerns with the City of Yarra, and their closed workshop meetings.

So, what are the portfolio committees? The new committees agreed to by a majority of elected members are no more than a very select committee of approximately eight members of the community which people who want to be part of must register for, and for the life of the council. The committee will also include only one elected official, and a director from council administration. That committee will have the power to decide whether the meeting is open to the public.

Compared to the previous committee structure, portfolios will not be open to the public. The meetings will not be live-streamed. Importantly, the public will not be privy to what is happening in the portfolio meetings unless the committee, not the chair or the director (administrator), agrees on the day that the meeting will be open. And the public will not know the meeting is public until that day, because there will be no advance warning.

Any member of the public who wants to be a member of the portfolio committee will have to register their interest. They can’t just come along to a portfolio meeting and expect to be able to ask any questions. Registration is the key and that registration, as I said before, is for the life of the council, ie four years

Frankly, it seems the portfolio committee’s structure is nothing more than an opportunity for the

self-promotion of individual elected members who chair these selective committees of like-minded people.

It can only be described as a ratepayer-funded interest group locked in for a four-year term.

True public participation is when meetings are mandated as public from the outset, and live-streamed to the community to allow everyone the opportunity to at least listen and view matters under consideration and as they are occurring.

With such a great deal of misinformation about the new structure and its ever-changing rules, coupled with the fact these models have failed under other jurisdictions, it’s little wonder there are some who want to discredit those elected officials such as myself who have tried to expose the inadequacies of the new system.

It’s clear the intent of a recently moved motion (December 12) that contained no future actions as clearly called out by the chief executive and which was described by one of the motion’s movers as a “Dorothy Dixer motion”, is not about good governance. The motion was simply an effort to shut down those elected members who dared question the governance of the new meetings’ model, which had already been proven a failure in other local government areas.

The intent of this new council, to try to intimidate councillors for performing our roles representing those who elected us, speaks for itself. Directly attacking or trying to undermine those of us who may dissent for good reason is fundamentally a stifling of free speech.

Ultimately, it’s not up to elected members or the chief executive to sit in judgment of anyone’s role on council. Indeed, if councillors believe the media has not reported their side accurately, an excuse given as the reason why there was a need for the “no future actions’’ motion, then approach the media directly. Don’t waste valuable debate time discussing an issue that does not result in an action. The time we spend in the council chamber should be devoted to constituency business, particularly now that we have only half of the council meetings a year as determined by the new governance structure.

I, and those elected officials who are concerned with the new structure, will not be intimidated by other elected members or the chief executive for using free speech and performing the role we were elected to do.

That said, is our parliament a group of politicians who all hold hands and simply agree? Does the Upper House simply agree to all the legislation put before it? No, there is rigorous debate between the “yays’’ and the “nays’’, as there should be. There must be checks and balances, and I will never shy away from asking the hard questions, even if it means I will call out the tactics of elected members who try an inquisition-style approach, as occurred at the most recent council meeting. In my 30 years I have never seen a motion moved in such away in an attempt to shut down any elected member, and I hope I don’t see it again.

The comment from Cr John Kelly, who recorded the second highest personal vote in his first Hobart City election, said it all: “If we are going to have these sorts of motions about every other motion, it’s going to be a self-perpetuating chamber of jokes, and I’m sad to be part of it.”

Marti Zucco is the longest-serving alderman of the Hobart City Council.