By Cara Waters
Melbourne Lord Mayor Nick Reece and councillors will be forced to decide whether there is a conflict of interest when voting and making decisions on issues involving the Queen Victoria Market after taking a donation from market trader and councillor Mark Scott.
The lord mayor and members of his team – Deputy Lord Mayor Roshena Campbell, councillor Kevin Louey and Scott – face potential conflicts of interest after Reece accepted a donation from Scott.
Lord Mayor Nick Reece and his deputy, Roshena Campbell, outside the Queen Victoria Market last month.Credit: Eddie Jim
Scott is a trader at the market, where he co-owns the business Ripe Cheese. Electoral donation returns show he gave $2500 towards Reece’s campaign.
Reece raised $950,484 for his campaign – three times the amount of his predecessor, Sally Capp, for her final campaign – from a who’s who of Melbourne, including wealthy business people, trade unions and developers.
The donation from Scott raises potential conflicts of interest after Reece pledged in his campaign to implement a four-point plan for the market and as the City of Melbourne undertakes redevelopment of the heritage-listed site.
In a post now deleted from Reece’s election website, he outlined a plan to freeze lease and licence costs for traders for four years, review parking around the market and introduce a new traffic management plan, establish a trader advisory panel and boost funding for marketing.
“This plan is about listening to our traders and making sure they have what they need to thrive, including rate freezes and a direct say in what happens to the market,” Reece said when announcing the plan in October.
When asked how he would manage potential conflicts of interest involving the market and whether he would abstain from voting on all issues involving the Queen Victoria Market and its redevelopment, or just some, the lord mayor replied: “I’ll balance my passion for the Queen Victoria Market with good governance, declaring conflicts as needed and assessing each decision individually.”
Scott said he only planned to abstain from voting on issues that directly impacted his business and would not abstain from voting on broader issues involving the market.
“I’ve sought governance advice from City of Melbourne on that, and it’s really up to me to navigate,” he said.
“When issues are of material financial impact to me personally, then I’ll need to recuse myself. But for example, if we were to come up with a traffic management plan for improving customer access to the market, which was one of Nick’s pledges, then there’s no material impact on my business.”
Scott said he would abstain from voting on freezing fees for traders as that would have a direct financial effect on his business, but he would not abstain from voting on the $1.7-billion Gurrowa Place redevelopment of Queen Victoria Market. The City of Melbourne and Lendlease project involves building three high-rise towers and transforming the car park into a public square.
Councillor Mark Scott is a Queen Victoria Market trader.
“I think whether Gurrowa Place goes ahead or not ... the governance ruling wouldn’t say that I would have a conflict of interest around that,” he said.
Mary-Lou Howie, head of the Friends of the Queen Victoria Market group, said “it is a given” that Scott must recuse himself from decisions directly related to the market.
“What is completely apparent is that clarification and electoral reform is long overdue around conflict,” she said. “It has an insidious impact on decision-making by councils everywhere.”
Reece is also under scrutiny after accepting tens of thousands of dollars from donors with property interests in the City of Melbourne.
Dr Colleen Lewis, of integrity group the Accountability Round Table, said that when looking at donations to election campaigns, who benefited and how they benefited needed to be considered.
“We need to ask who benefits from funding and why do people donate to campaigns.”
Lewis said whether a councillor should recuse themselves from voting when they had received a donation depended on the size of the donation.
“If it is for $200 probably not. If the donation is going into the thousands then yes they must recuse themselves because there is a perception of a conflict of interest and perceptions can be as important as the reality,” she said.
Lewis said Reece, Scott, Campbell and Louey should not vote on any decisions relating to the market.
“Then there can be no accusations of a conflict of interest.”
Campbell and Louey were contacted for comment but did not respond.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.