Council vote on new policy split after rancorous debate and accusations of “paranoia”
A straightforward policy discussion during a council meeting quickly turned bitter as councillors threw around accusations of “paranoia” and “grandstanding”.
Cairns
Don't miss out on the headlines from Cairns. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Council’s factions dusted off the boxing gloves for another round of rancour at a meeting on Wednesday that resulted in blows traded over policy interpretations.
Councillors couldn’t even get through two agenda items before accusations of “paranoia” and “grandstanding” were directed at each other.
The topic of discussion was a general review of policy concerning council meeting conduct.
A new policy template had been supplied by the state’s Department of Local Government as a best practice example, which council officers recommended councillors adopt without amendment.
Council officers also drafted a Terms of Reference to complement the proposed policy update.
Division 5 councillor Amy Eden was the first to speak against the motion, declaring the new policy lacked authenticity.
“We’re not a copy and paste council, our value is ‘Cairnsness’ … I would challenge that this is the best idea,” Cr Eden said.
In response, Cairns mayor Bob Manning said the policy was ideal.
“You started off by saying we don’t want to be a generic council, I would find it perfectly fine if we were a generic council,” Cr Manning said.
Division 9 councillor Brett Olds said he would also not support the motion.
“This seems like change for change’s sake,” Cr Olds said.
“(The policy) is convoluted … and I don’t have much faith in the department.”
Cr Manning rebutted Cr Olds by saying it was correct to “follow models that come out of Brisbane”.
“I don’t have the same paranoia that you do,” he said.
“Just leave it as it was,” Cr Olds fired back.
“It’s not paranoia, but if it isn’t broken it doesn’t need fixing.”
Both Cr Eden and Cr Olds had cited concerns with new policy’s rules for introducing general business motions to a meeting, which would effectively demand councillors state their reasons for a motion before being allowed to discuss its contents.
Cr Eden said the new procedure would “weaken democracy”.
But Division 6 councillor Kristy Vallely stood by the change, citing an incident from an April meeting wherein she felt ambushed by a general business motion raised by Division 2 councillor Rob Pyne.
“I think sometimes these motions are used as a way for people to grandstand,” Cr Vallely said.
“If we allow general business motions without proper governance … I don’t think we’re doing our jobs to the best of our abilities.”
Division 1 councillor Brett Moller closed the debate by saying the new policy was aligned with the council’s current standing orders for meetings.
“This recommendation is about good governance,” Cr Moller said.
“Referencing ‘Cairnsness’ … you can’t simply do that without regard to legislation, best practice and benchmarking.
“It’s also quite astounding this has been brought to us because of issues that arose in the chamber due to general business motions.
“If we want an example of where these motions can go really badly, we only have to take Cr Olds’ motion, seconded by Cr Eden, to do away with all committee structures in this council … indeed it did come back to bite us because of the poor wording of that motion … what an embarrassment.”
The policy change was carried six votes to four, with councillors Amy Eden, Cathy Zeiger, Brett Olds and Rob Pyne voting against.
More Coverage
Originally published as Council vote on new policy split after rancorous debate and accusations of “paranoia”