Inside story: The investigation into the Tom Tate and councillor final meeting spat

Mayor Tom Tate has been accused of acting like a ‘King’ by asking a councillor to sit down, with suggestions the actions may land him in strife. Paul Weston explains what’s going on.

Mayor Tom Tate at the final council meeting ordered Councillor Glenn Tozer to “sit down” repeatedly when he stood up in support of allowing colleague Peter Young to speak. Who was right? What happens next?

At least two separate lines of inquiry are underway.

Sources suggest a member of the public has made a complaint to council about the Mayor’s meeting behaviour. As policy, the Office of the CEO does not make comments on this.

A complaint can be forwarded to the Office of Independent Assessor – the local authority watchdog – with the outcome most likely known some time into the New Year.

Mr Tate denies any wrongdoing, saying his legal advice is he acted according to proper legal procedures.

Mr Tozer is understood to have sought “independent advice” on his actions.

At its simplest, it boils down to this – did the Mayor breach a subordinate local law by demanding that he sit down?

Mayor Tom Tate has been accused of being “un-Australian” and “muffling” debate after a flashpoint moment at a full council meeting where he silenced and sat down two councillors.,

Mr Tate had outlined a breach of the subordinate local law, allegedly by Mr Young for leaving a previous meeting – without asking permission – where the keys to the city were given to veteran developer Harry ‘Highrise’ Triguboff.

Mr Young had asked “question” and then “statement” and was told by the chair “no”.

Mr Tozer raised a “motion of dissent”, which he would argue should be enough for Mr Tate to realise it was the procedural motion. Mr Tozer believes the chair had no alternative but to accept it.

What was Mr Tozer’s intent? It’s obvious he wanted to overturn the ruling which prevented Mr Young from being able to make a statement. He was asked to sit down – twice.

Members can ask a question of the chair if it is relevant and relates to the debate. But the chair can disallow the question if it’s “considered to be inconsistent with good order”.

The bottom line? Was it “reasonable” to allow Mr Young to ask a question or make a statement.

The Mayor could have allowed Mr Young to ask a question, and refuse to answer it. Or let him make a statement and then allow the meeting to move on.

He could have allowed a motion by Mr Tozer to let Mr Young speak. Without a seconder or majority vote, Mr Tozer’s motion would have lapsed. We would have all moved on.

In terms of the “pub test”, Bulletin readers are deeply divided.

Mayor Tom Tate has been accused of being “un-Australian” and “muffling” debate after a flashpoint moment at a full council meeting where he silenced and sat down two councillors.

Some are calling the Mayor a “dictator” by not allowing Mr Young to reply. He’s been accused of being “King Tate who has a mandate”.

Others are wanting his critics, like environmentalists Sally Spain and Lois Levy, to “pack up their soapboxes and move along”.

There will be a future investigation of sorts. It can finally answer and determine the boundaries of democratic debate, and who got it right or wrong.

What’s not been talked about is the very real prospect that Mr Tozer could have stood his ground, refused to sit down. Some readers have suggested he should have.

He could have been thrown out of the meeting.

This would have prevented him from taking part in the later debate on the Springbrook cableway and supporting the exploration of the Darlington Range proposal.

You choose your battles in the wars at City Hall.

Follow @PaulWestonGC