04 May 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — Having sat through the last couple of contributions from the opposition, it would be very easy for me this morning to grieve for the people of Victoria, given the hollowness of the grievances that have been advanced by opposition members. They indicate the lack of substance among those on the other side of the house. That is not what I got up to talk about.
This morning I grieve for the people of the City of Greater Geelong, because now there is a real opportunity for major democratic reform in that city. There is an opportunity to open up the talent pool from which the mayor is chosen, solely because of a coalition government policy to implement the process of the direct election of the mayor.
Mr Wynne interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Weller) — Order! The member for Richmond will behave.
Mr MORRIS — The implementation of that policy will give the people of Geelong the opportunity to have a real say in who is to lead their city for this term of the council. There is one threat to this proposed reform. Sadly, not everyone is interested in getting the best possible outcome for the Geelong community by expanding the franchise — not everyone is interested in expanding the pool of candidates.
The current pool of candidates is essentially the 12 Geelong councillors, or whoever they may be following the next municipal election. There is no doubt at all that there is some talent there, but the opportunity is also there to expand that pool to any person of ability, interest and commitment who wishes to put their name forward for election to the office of mayor.
Sadly , at least one person seems determined to preserve the old ways. Some people seem determined to fight the expansion of the franchise on what, from my perspective, can only be considered to be narrow views of self‑interest, not the interests of the community.
They are interested in preserving their perceived advantage — and it is only a perceived advantage — and preventing the wider Geelong community from having the opportunity to participate in a genuine exercise of democracy. That is why I grieve for the people of Geelong.
The future of Geelong is indeed crucial to the future of Victoria. The City of Greater Geelong was established in 1993. Through amalgamation it combined a number of smaller councils into a body that was capable of serving the demands of the wider region. That is not a reflection on the former cities; they served their purpose well. They simply lacked the scale and capacity to serve the interests of the region.
The current city now has a population of around 220 000, there are about 160 000 voters on the roll and some 90 000 people are employed within the municipality, which covers an area of about 12 000 square kilometres. It is the second‑largest council in the state and is clearly a major centre for business and industry. Obviously what flows from that is that it is a major centre and provides major opportunities for jobs.
The municipality has tremendous natural assets. It is right on the doorstep of the surf coast but clearly has great natural assets in its own right — great recreational assets, great cultural assets and great opportunities to develop interest in those areas and to develop facilities. Of course even if it were not good for any other reason, it is also the home of the mighty Cats. There is an opportunity for the city of Greater Geelong to enjoy substantial growth with the development of the Armstrong Creek area. That is rapidly coming on line and will provide great opportunities for growth. Geelong is truly a leading regional city, and the future of Geelong is indeed crucial to the future of the state.
The notion of a popularly elected mayor has tremendous local support. I know this is contested in at least one quarter, but in recent weeks I have engaged in a consultation process which has confirmed for me that the support is undoubtedly real. I will come back to the consultation process in a minute.
First I will to refer to Hansard of proceedings in the Legislative Council on 4 November 2004 and an adjournment matter that was raised for the then Minister for Local Government. A member sought the investigation of the possibility of the City of Greater Geelong directly electing its mayor. The member said:
I have been approached by many people in my electorate asking me whether, considering that Geelong is the second‑largest city in Victoria, it is possible to publicly elect the mayor.
The member went on to say he was also informed that many states in Australia had directly elected mayors, which is quite right, and he talked about some of those structures. Following an interjection by Mr Baxter, the member went on to say:
… Melbourne has a directly elected mayor, which I understand has been successful, Mr Baxter, particularly in terms of the stability and cohesion needed for good governance.
People in Geelong are not happy with all the politicking that too often takes place every year leading up to the council electing a mayor. It can be very disruptive.
He then went on to talk about the recent battle for the mayoralty and concluded by seeking the assistance of the minister to look into the matter. The member concerned was then a member of the Legislative Council but now serves in this place as the member for Lara.
Coming back to the consultation program, I should probably say at this point that the government has an entirely open mind on what the process might be to directly elect a mayor. Our commitment was to have a directly elected mayor. We did not talk about specific processes, because we took the view that the important thing was to provide the access and ultimately we should adopt a system that best fits what the Geelong community needs.
The people of Geelong were asked to consider a number of questions that are central to this issue, such as should there be a mayor only, should a leadership team be elected or should there be some other combination. The leadership model is the one used at the City of Melbourne, where both the mayor and deputy mayor are elected as a team. There is an option to have a popularly elected mayor only and have the deputy elected by the council and to either make that compulsory or to make it optional, as is now the case in councils across the state. The third option would be to elect both the mayor and deputy at simultaneous elections — in other words, there would be a separate slate of candidates for the mayor and for the deputy mayor.
There are a number of advantages and disadvantages with all three of these methods. Those points have been laid out in a discussion paper that has been made available to the community. The second question that has to be settled is whether someone who has nominated for one position of mayor or deputy mayor should also be allowed to nominate for the alternative position or for a position as a councillor. Again there are a number of advantages and disadvantages to those different options.
We are very keen to learn the views of the Geelong community and what factors are important to them and to establish the sorts of parameters that the people of Geelong might want placed around the proposal. That has been the purpose of the consultation process. Historically the process — it was followed by the former government — has been to issue a discussion paper, which we certainly have done, and then to conduct a public forum, which we have also done.
Quite often in the past the former government sent in public servants and consultants rather than learn firsthand what was actually going on. But as we all know in this place, it is no good expecting people to simply come to you, come to a meeting or whatever; we wanted to know what people were really thinking and what the community out there wanted.
There is no point in simply asking people to come along to a meeting because you get a skewed view of the municipality. You need to go out and talk to people where they live their daily lives, and that is exactly what I did. I conducted listening posts across Geelong at Corio shopping centre, at Belmont shopping centre, at Westfield in the city in two stints at different times of the day to get a different cross‑section of the community, outside the Geelong West library — —
Mr Trezise — What did they say?
Mr MORRIS — At Ocean Grove, at the Leopold shopping village — I will come back to the Geelong West library in a minute — and at the Bellarine Village shopping centre in Newcomb, as well as a stint to talk to the early‑morning commuters at the Geelong railway station.
I said I would come back to the Geelong West listening post because, with the exception of one location, the verdict from the community was overwhelmingly supportive of the opportunity for it to have a direct say in the election of a mayor. In one case only did we get a number of people — and I agree, it was a significant number of people but not a majority of those we spoke to at that location — coming along and arguing very politely that they did not really want to have a say in choosing the person who was going to be the leader of their community. They were content to leave that decision to others. That is fair enough; it is an acceptable view — but it happens to be very much a minority view.
However, it was no surprise to me that that particular listening post, the only listening post where there was any serious concern expressed about the plan, just happened to be 500 metres down the road from the office of the member for Geelong. That may have been simply a coincidence. Perhaps I have become a little bit cynical in my old age, but I do not think so. Perhaps I am a bit of a sceptic; I have probably always been one of those. But in this case I do not believe my scepticism is in any way misplaced.
Even if we give that result the benefit of the doubt — that one listening post where there was a number but not a majority opposed to the concept — there is no doubt that overall the community overwhelmingly supports a directly elected mayor.
The development of an appropriate mayoral electoral structure is an important step in the evolution of local democracy in the region, and it is very important that all stakeholders have the opportunity to discuss the issues and to provide input. No matter what stake they are holding, they need to have the opportunity to have input. In addition to the listening post and to the other opportunities that I have already referred to, I met with the Municipal Association of Victoria, the Victorian Local Governance Association and LGPro, which represents the senior officers in councils, with the councillors of the City of Geelong and so on, including some local members of Parliament.
Every person I have met with, no matter what their view, has provided considered and valued comment. These people have certainly assisted the goal of the process, which is clearly getting the best possible result for the people of the City of Geelong. All local members of Parliament, whether they be government members, whether they be opposition members, whether they be Liberal, whether they be Labor, whether they be state or whether they be federal, were invited to meet with me and with officers of Local Government Victoria to discuss the proposal and provide some input. There was one group conspicuous by its absence.
There was one group that seemed for one reason or another — and some reasons were better than others, I concede that — not to participate. Not one member of the Labor Party, state or federal, took the opportunity to make their views known on the future of local government democracy in Geelong. Not a single person was prepared to spend an hour, half an hour or 10 minutes at a time of their convenience to have some input into this important process.
Some people might call such a high level of disinterest in this important debate laziness. I am not going to make that sort of judgement; I am not going to characterise it in that way. Perhaps it was really an amazing coincidence and all the Labor diaries were full. Whatever the reason, the Geelong community is getting no leadership from its Labor members. It is getting nothing but misinformation and negativism from at least one of them.
We have to wonder why, because a lot of people on their side of the fence have supported the issue. As the member for South Barwon identified in the chamber yesterday, the concept is supported by Labor luminaries or former luminaries, such as a former mayor, Peter McMullin; a former President of the Legislative Council, Rod McKenzie; and, as I said earlier, the member for Lara.
I say to those members who remain silent: it is not too late to have your say.
By remaining silent you are failing the very people who elected you. Get out of your offices and talk to the real people of Geelong and you will find out there is widespread and genuine community support for a directly elected mayor. When you have done that, put your best foot forward and contribute to the debate in a constructive manner.
The voters will not thank you for hanging back. They will not thank you for criticising the process. There is a real debate to be had on shaping the future of this great Victorian regional city.
Legislative Assembly 4 May 2011
Printer Friendly Version...