Columns
Residents' Association Image

Residents' Association

The parking dilemma?
Read more >>

Business in Southbank Image

Business in Southbank

Apartment living made easy
Read more >>

Owners Corporation Law Image

Owners Corporation Law

Not all liability policies are created equal
Read more >>

Federal Politics Image

Federal Politics

Maintaining commercial ties with China
Read more >>

We Live Here Image

We Live Here

Short-stays behind property price pain
Read more >>

Southbanker Image

Southbanker

A jack of all arts
Read more >>

History Image

History

ASBESTOS!!
Read more >>

Skypad Living Image

Skypad Living

Activating vertical villages
Read more >>

Health and Wellbeing Image

Health and Wellbeing

Soups, salads, patience and supplements
Read more >>

Councillor Profile Image

Councillor Profile

The making of a lord mayor
Read more >>

Pets Corner Image

Pets Corner

Rocket to the city
Read more >>

Southbank Fashion Image

Southbank Fashion

Spring racing in Southbank
Read more >>

Street Smarts Image

Street Smarts

Power Street – Southbank
Read more >>

Letters Image

Letters

Biased on school name
Read more >>

Hall of secrets

09 Feb 2017

Hall of secrets Image

Comment by Shane Scanlan

The level of secrecy adopted by the City of Melbourne has been brought into sharp focus by recent inquiries about its approach to filling the 11th councillor vacancy.

Its culture of non-disclosure has long been disturbing, but has not really been measurable because there has been nothing to compare it with.

But in this instance, Southbank Local News had cause to ask the same questions of another government agency – the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) – and the responses could not have been more different.

The question was, essentially, “what have the two agencies said to each other about how to resolve this matter?”

The public interest in this matter is extreme.  If the VEC wins its appeal against a magistrate’s ruling then Lord Mayor Robert Doyle looks like winning a majority number of councillors.  It is most reasonable to ask how and why the VEC and Cr Doyle have come to the same conclusion about the best way to resolve it.

Freedom of Information (FoI) requests were lodged with both agencies on December 6 seeking relevant documents (people might well ask why FoI was necessary!).  

The VEC responded with copies of 20 documents in the mail before Christmas.  There was no hesitation, no obstruction, no fuss.  It did, however, delete the mobile phone numbers of officers.  Fair enough.

In contrast, the council took the view that the public servants involved have the right to decide whether or not they want their names included.  They interpret this as “personal affairs information” and, therefore, potentially exempt. Should the council decide to release any documents including their names, the relevant council officers will be given 60 days to appeal this decision.   On January 23, the council sent an invoice for the time it took to search the documents.

A further question was asked of both agencies on January 16 – what conversations had taken place between Cr Doyle and VEC Commissioner Warwick Gately.

The VEC responded promptly with dates and details of two conversations.  The council, on the other hand, said Cr Doyle was on leave and would not be back until after Australia Day. It later confirmed the two conversations but said Cr Doyle considered them confidential.

This example is not extraordinary in itself, but it well illustrates the town hall’s culture. The rot starts at the top and permeates every level of the organisation.

Far from celebrating transparency as one of the basics of local democracy, it resents public interest as an intrusion of its apparent right to run the council as an exclusive club.  

Rank and file councillors are briefed on a needs-to-know basis and, should they lose the trust of officers, are punished via an information freeze.

Sadly, extreme secrecy has become normal.  It’s old reporters who can remember different norms who are out of step.

The council employs a small army of former journalists who are collectively paid about $1 million per year to carefully craft meaningless responses to media inquiries.

Recent examples that have yielded refusals have included: the specifics of the Lord Mayor’s declared conflict of interest from November 22’s Future Melbourne Committee; whether or not CEO Ben Rimmer is still being paid by the council after being on sick leave since the middle of last year; and the specific events nominated by the company which won a council tender.

It is customary to seek a response from all parties when writing a news story but, when it comes to the City of Melbourne, it is almost pointless.

The council has long lost its way and feels little obligation or accountability to the people it is supposed to represent and who pay them.

This decay in democratic standards is not confined to the council.  It’s a global phenomenon against which citizens feel affronted but largely powerless to influence.

Stay in touch with Southbank. Subscribe to FREE monthly e-Newspaper.

You must be registered with Southbank Local News to be able to post comments.
To register, please click here.