2023-01-16 & 23: Triple Rollover Jackpot

2022-01-16 14:53: A truck carrying tiles rolls over as it enters the Tasman Bridge from the western end. The bridge is at least partially closed for over four hours as the driver is rescued and the truck and debris removed. The ensuing traffic jam blocks up major thoroughfares on both sides of the river during the afternoon/evening rush.

2022-01-16 16:45: I publish the previous post, and learn the above news.

2022-01-16 19:01: With many councillors and key staff, including Council’s streaming technicians, stuck in traffic in one part of greater Hobart or another, the meeting is adjourned for one week.

2022-01-23 19:01: Everything is fine. Roll tape.

Councillor Walker and CEO Ian Nelson are both on leave this week, and Councillor Kennedy attends via Zoom. Callan Paske, Manager Communications and Strategic Development, fills in for Mr Nelson.

A lengthy list of engagements for the Mayor and other councillors, including a meet and greet with the chair of the newly established Stadiums Tasmania, where apparently neither Bellerive Oval nor Macquarie Point’s place in the grand plan were discussed in any detail, and a meeting with Hobart Lord Mayor Anna Reynolds at her invitation, with discussion including ferries, stadia and further infrastructure.

Councillor Warren inquires how councillors might be able to provide input into the Mayor’s various discussions on matters of strategic importance. I sense a mild reluctance from Blomeley to commit to briefings at the regular whole-council workshops, preferring instead one-to-one phone calls¹ with concerned councillors. I’m sure things’ll be sorted out in the coming months.

In response to a question on notice from Denise Hoggan: The planning permit for the Rosny Hill Hotel development was recently extended, and negotiations for a sublease continue. The decision to extend was made via delegation by council officers, as are all permit extension requests, though we’ll come back to that later.

Michael Figg precedes his question with a statement³ regarding accessibility to the public of tabled documents and amended motions in council meetings, which has been a point of frustration for me too over the years. Amended motions sometimes, when there isn’t a Zoom participant⁴, appear on the big monitor in council chambers, but almost never show up well on the live stream, leaving me waiting for the minutes to be published for the full text because almost no one explicitly reads out what has changed when they stand up to move it. Tabled documents are a lost cause, be they minutes of committee meetings or letters from the Minister for Local Government, I haven’t the foggiest where they end up and I’ve certainly looked.

His question regards the proposed Macquarie Point stadium and its effect on the continued economic viability of Bellerive Oval, but the proposal is too new for any meaningful answer to be given.

And then things get complicated. Victor Marsh, regular Public Question Time questioner, brings two questions. The first, regarding the apparently quite tetchy Bellerive Oval alarm system, is taken on notice.⁵ And the second? Well maybe you should just see it, with some added context from the far distant land of a couple of metres away and nearly two years ago:

In the end, calling the police wasn’t necessary, and never actually happened; Marsh left of his own accord after a brief conversation with council staff. It’s a difficult position to be in for all involved: As far as “impugning the chair” goes, I can somewhat see the throughline, though it’s not a great look to shut down questioning about comments verifiably made by one’s self, “offensive” or otherwise. On the other hand, despite Marsh’s protest that the question was only about prior events, the subject of the comments (the Kangaroo Bay Hotel and Hospitality School) and Marsh’s stated goal in subsequent interviews (to ascertain the ways the Mayor’s opinion had changed on the Kangaroo Bay Hotel and Hospitality School) did put the question pretty firmly in the “too close to a subject (the Kangaroo Bay Hotel and Hospitality School) on the agenda (four times over)” camp, which Council’s PQT Policy does pretty clearly give the Mayor the right to put a stop to.

Was all this avoidable? Probably. Did anyone come out of the mess with something to be proud of? Well it’s a gold star for the staff involved in the de-escalation effort, but I won’t presume to speak for either party. In any case, when Council returned from recess five minutes later, there were no further questions.

STOP PRESS: Mr Marsh has put a version of his originally intended question on notice for the upcoming meeting, which includes no items on Kangaroo Bay, ruling out that avenue. We’ll see how that goes, eh?

As I distracted myself with digging through historical videos looking for the incident in question, two items zipped by: A deputation from Kym Goodes, managing director at 3P Advisory, who are running Chambroad’s consultation on the December 2022 proposal, briefly outlining the consultation process; and a planning item which, due to the previous week’s adjournment, had already had to be dealt with under delegation, so just a procedural motion to note the delegation and that was the end of it.

Which brings us to the stack of Kangaroo Bay-related motions. I’ll deal with the first three all in one clump:

Broad agreement is the name of the game tonight. There is, for example, broad agreement among councillors that Chambroad’s request for an extension should not be granted. The reasons vary, be it doneness with the whole thing or an open mind towards whatever may come out of Chambroad’s consultation but a wish for them to stick to the schedule they’ve come up with to do it. The broad agreement is such that the first motion should, by all rights, pass unanimously. And yet:

There is, for example, broad agreement that if Chambroad cannot rise to the task, then the land should be bought back. For some, it may be the case that Chambroad couldn’t possibly pull it off, and when March rolls around, I’m sure they’ll vote to go ahead with the buyback. For others, as is their fashion, it will come down to the conditions on the night and the documentation provided to them. For others still, it could be any number of things. All this is to say, the broad agreement, that the ball should at least be started rolling on the buyback, should put the second motion through in similarly undisputed fashion. And yet:

There is, for example, broad agreement that something will eventually have to be done with the land on the waterfront at Kangaroo Bay, and that community consultation would be helpful in deciding exactly what. Now I do have some concerns about over-consultation and duplication of work: I think these are probably questions that would need to be asked in a larger campaign after a buyback anyway, so this is perhaps jumping the gun a smidge. As such, dear reader, I am less concerned with the precise outcome of this motion, though you may be experiencing some déjà vu:

This trio of sole dissents from Councillor James is baffling to me, but in no way surprising, because it aligns perfectly with his previous voting patterns. My bafflement comes from a lack of understanding of how he doesn’t see these motions as movement towards his apparent goal of a buyback. Will that goal be achieved immediately? No, but in the grand scheme of things the wait is tiny, with just three meetings between now and the deadline in April, which remains exactly where it was before this meeting.

The sheer impatience of the “buy back now” mantra seems to me to lead only to frustration and pain, and I think people get enough of that out of the process already.

Sometimes, though, you just can’t win anyway.

Local Government (Meeting Regulations) 2015

Section 19: Discussion of a resolved matter

(1) The chairperson of a meeting may only allow a matter in respect of which a decision was made earlier in the meeting to be discussed again at that meeting if –

(a) in the opinion of the chairperson, the vote may not have accurately reflected the opinion held by the meeting due to misunderstanding of the motion or for some other reason; or

(b) new information comes to hand; or

(c) in the opinion of the chairperson, some vital information has been overlooked.

(2) A motion that a matter be allowed to be discussed again under subregulation (1) is to be made and voted for in the affirmative before the matter may be discussed.

While Councillor Ritchie’s motion at 9.1 may not have immediately enacted the buyback clause to its fullest extent, it did pretty clearly set the wheels turning, and with a solid majority. There was neither new nor overlooked information to be had. Though Councillor James was given an opportunity to explain either of these away, I think he may have got started on his opening speech instead, and the motion was rightly blocked. In a stunning counterpoint to my previous notes on patience, Councillor James was about 20 minutes late to the punch.

Tonight’s keywords: AFL Tasmania and the Clarence Zebras⁶, the delegation of planning permit extension applications⁷, FOGO⁸, refusals to grant extension by proponent⁹, the Niche Structure Plan¹⁰, Bellerive ferry parking effects, Wellington Street drainage¹¹, conflicts of interest¹²

And… Okay so this still went out the day of the next meeting. In fairness, the gap was much reduced by the week’s adjournment of this meeting, but also two weeks is still pretty poor. Writing is hard, I’ll get there eventually. See you soon.

Comments on "2023-01-16 & 23: Triple Rollover Jackpot"