MINUTES

Open Portion

Monday, 24 February 2025

AT 4.00 pm

Council Chamber, Town Hall

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve to deal with any supplementary items not appearing on the agenda, as reported by the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

No supplementary items were received.

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

Discussion

The Council received the Ombudsman’s report in respect to breaches of the Personal Information Protection (PIP) Act at the end of the day on Tuesday 11 February 2025 and had to then respond to media requests on the report the following day; there was no time to properly consider the report before it was in the media.

Having said that, the Council has been previously made aware of the matters surrounding the handling of Cr. Elliot’s room booking attempt through the investigations and actions that were taken last year.

It is regrettable that the Council has received adverse findings from the Ombudsman, however, these events were now some time ago and there have been personnel and procedural change that has occurred to ensure that similar occurrences do not occur in the future. 

The Lord Mayor has acknowledged and accepted the findings of the Ombudsman’s investigation and has agreed to undertake training on the Act.

In respect to the recommendations of the Ombudsman, the Office of the CEO has already commenced sourcing an appropriate training course/provider in respect to obligations to protect personal information under the PIP Act as well as Council’s relevant policies and procedures.  This training will be made available to management staff and Elected Members once a suitable course/provider is engaged and organised.  Additionally, the Council has recently reviewed its employee induction program, which ensures that all new employees at the Council are aware of their privacy obligations.  

The PIP Act will now be added to the Council’s cyclic training schedule, which also includes anti-discrimination, child protection, workplace health and safety (etc).  The Elected Member induction material will also be reviewed to ensure that it provides adequate information and education for Elected Members, particularly new Elected Members.

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications

Capital City Strategic Plan

Pillar:

Governance and Civic Involvement

Outcome:

Hobart is a city that is well governed that recognises the community as an active partner that informs decisions.

Strategy:

Build community trust through the implementation of effective civic leadership, ethical conduct and responsible governance processes that ensure accountability, transparency and compliance with all legislated and statutory requirements.

Legislation and Policy

Legislation:

The Ombudsman’s investigation and associated report were conducted in accordance with their statutory powers under the above legislation.

Policy:

The City’s Privacy Statement can be found here:

Privacy statement - City of Hobart, Tasmania Australia

Financial Implications

1.   There will be a financial impost for the provision of privacy training, which cannot presently be determined until a series of quotes have been secured.

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

Discussion

1.   Officers support the development of a Council Volunteer Awards Policy, and agree that it will support a consistent and transparent approach to awards across the City’s various volunteer programs, reference groups and advisory groups.

2.   The development of a Policy will see collaboration between the City’s various groups responsible for volunteers, including Community Programs, City Welcome and Open Space, together with People & Culture and Legal & Governance.

3.   It is proposed that the Policy would be presented to Council for approval as part of the organisation’s Policy Manual. The Volunteer Management System Manual will be updated to cross-reference this Policy, ensuring that the various governance documents work together to ensure a consistent and transparent approach to volunteer management across the City.

Current situation

The Council does not have a specific policy that covers volunteer awards. The City does have a Volunteer Management System Manual (October 2017) that details a volunteer recognition policy. This manual is publicly available via the City’s website and is presently being updated.

At its meeting of 25 September 2023, the Council approved the recommendation to replace the Hobart Community Awards (that had previously been Australia Day Awards) and reallocate resources to expand the Volunteer Recognition Program that recognises the City’s own volunteers. The report and recommendation are shown in the link below https://hobart.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/09/CO_25092023_AGN_1828_AT_WEB.htm

The Community Awards and Australia Day Award programs that operated up until 2023 were formal Council award programs where nominations were sought externally from the Hobart community through Mercury advertising, social media and community networks. All nominations were then assessed by a panel that included staff and an external community representative. The recommended award recipients were then presented to the Council for endorsement prior to being awarded with their certificates.

With the significant change from a formal award program with an external focus to an operational internal volunteer recognition program approved in 2023, it was not intended to have formal nominations put forward or that the recipients be approved by the Council. The report to Council in September 2023 did not specify who had the delegation to approve award recipients. As included in the recommendation, this operational program was to be delivered to celebrate International Volunteer Day and recognise City of Hobart volunteers. 

Most recently, a volunteer reception was held in the Town Hall on 5 December 2024 (International Volunteer Day) to celebrate the many volunteers that support the City through a number of programs and reference / advisory groups. All Elected Members were invited to attend, with several present at the reception.

At the ceremony, volunteers that had achieved the outstanding milestones of 5–10 and 15 years of service were each presented with certificates by the Lord Mayor.  There was also a volunteer of year award presented to one member of each volunteering program/advisory group for their work over the year. There were 19 awards presented across the program areas.

It was noted in the 2023 report that there would be collaboration with the coordinators of other City of Hobart volunteer programs to develop the detail of the volunteer milestones and volunteer of the year awards. The Community and Economic Development Network volunteer of the year awards are aligned with the Bushcare Golden Secateurs Award where each year the City of Hobart recognises an outstanding Bushcare volunteer. These recipients of this award are also determined by staff who coordinate the volunteer program through discussion with the group convenors.

Each of the recipients were selected by their volunteer coordinators based on criteria that was aligned to the City of Hobart’s values.

These values are:

·    People: Volunteer shows care for the community, customers, and colleagues.

·    Teamwork: Volunteer collaborates well with others and draws on collective strengths for community benefit.

·    Focus and Direction: Volunteer helps work towards clear goals for sustainable social, environmental, and economic outcomes.

·    Creativity and Innovation: Volunteer embraces new approaches and seeks continuous improvement.

·    Accountability: Volunteer is transparent and works ethically to achieve outcomes for the community.

Volunteer Coordinators are designated staff that work directly with volunteers to deliver specific programs or to facilitate the volunteers who are part of the City’s reference/advisory groups.

The volunteering programs operating in the Community Programs Group are:

·    Networking for Harmony Multicultural Advisory Committee

·    Access Advisory Committee

·    Housing with Dignity Reference Group

·    Still Gardening Program

·    LGBTIQA+ Reference Group

·    Hobart Older Persons Reference Group

·    Mathers House; Youth Programs

·    International Student Ambassadors.

There are also volunteer programs operating in City Welcome Group (Salamanca Market and TTIC) and programs in Open Space Group (Bushcare and Trackcare).

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications

Capital City Strategic Plan

Pillar:

2 – Community inclusion, participation and belonging.

Outcome:

2.2 Hobart is a place where diversity is celebrated and everyone can belong, and where people have opportunities to learn about one another and participate in city life.

2.4 Hobart communities are safe and resilient, ensuring people can support one another and flourish in times of hardship.

Strategy:

2.2.1 Support people from all backgrounds and life experiences to participate in Hobart life

2.2.3 Provide and support activities and programs that celebrate diversity to reduce social isolation and build social cohesion

2.4.6 Deliver and support initiatives, activities and programs that build community resilience, wellbeing and safety.

Legislation and Policy

Legislation:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1998

Policy:

City of Hobart Volunteer Management System Manual & associated policies and procedures

Financial Implications

1.   There are no foreseen budget related impacts from the development of a Volunteer Awards Policy.

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

After careful consideration, it was determined that the level of the information requested was not required for Elected Members to satisfy their section 28 functions as individual invoices are of an operational nature as provided for under Part 7 of the Local Government Act 1993 (“the Act”).

In considering whether to provide this information, there were also other concerns that were taken into account, including:

·    A need to maintain legal professional privilege (especially for live matters, or where a confidentiality agreement formed part of the settlement), or where the information could be of benefit to a party bringing an action against Council.

·    The privacy of third parties.

·    The fact that the request also sought ‘all’ legal invoices for the life of the previous council (2018-22) which are not relevant to the exercise of section 28 duties for the life of the current Council.

·    That satisfying the request would also unreasonably extend the resources of the Council, as per section 28A(3)(a) of the Act.

·    Cr Elliot’s rationale did note that she only seeks the ‘invoices’ as opposed to any legal advice. However, it is an accepted principle at common law that a lawyers’ bill of costs (an invoice) is privileged – Packer v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (QLD) [1985]. 

Officers have previously provided a summary of the Elected Member legal costs to all Elected Members on the ‘Hub’.  This summary provided an overview of the relevant expenditure (on an itemised basis).

Officers remain of the view that the level of detail provided in the legal costs summary is appropriate for the purposes of satisfying the duties/functions requirements under section 28 of the Act while also maintaining legal privilege and privacy obligations.

It is recommended that the Notice of Motion not be supported.

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications

Capital City Strategic Plan

Pillar:

Not applicable.

Outcome:

Not applicable.

Strategy:

Not applicable.

Legislation and Policy

Legislation:

Local Government Act 1993, Legal Profession Act (Tas) 2007.

Policy:

City of Hobart Information Policy

Financial Implications

1.   Not applicable.

2.   Not applicable.

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

Discussion:

Section 27(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 legislatively acknowledges that the Lord Mayor is regarded as, and accorded the status of, the most senior elected member of a Council. This status is recognised by other levels of government, business leaders, and the community in both ceremonial and business dealings.

The Lord Mayor is entrusted to represent the Council and communicate on its behalf, where appropriate and ensure consistency with the City of Hobart’s Community Vision, Annual Plan, and Strategic Plan.

Allowing the Lord Mayor to manage correspondence effectively supports this leadership role.

Under the current practice, Lord Mayoral correspondence is shared with all Elected Members when it pertains to a decision of the full Council or involves any significant or strategic matter. Copies of such correspondence is provided through the established communication channel of the Elected Member Bulletin.

This targeted approach ensures that elected members receive relevant updates without unnecessary administrative burden and balances transparency with efficient information flow.

It is standard governance practice for the head of a council to manage certain communications while keeping other elected members informed through strategic updates where appropriate.

In preparing this response, officers consulted with other councils about their process. The capital cities of Brisbane, Adelaide and Darwin, as well as Greater Hobart Councils of Clarence and Kingborough all reported not having a formalised process but rather followed the same approach as the City of Hobart.

In conclusion, it is not considered that changes to the current processes are required.

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications

Capital City Strategic Plan

Pillar:

8 – Governance and Civic Involvement

Legislation and Policy

Legislation:

Local Government Act 1993

Financial Implications

1.   Nil.

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

Under the Right to Information Act 2009 (RTI) and Local Government Act 1993, the City’s RTI administration is not the responsibility of Elected Members (either individually or collectively) but the responsibility of the CEO and any RTI delegates. These individuals are subject to multiple oversight mechanisms, including:

·    the Ombudsman, such as via external review of RTI applications or investigation of complaints by RTI applicants;

·    the Ombudsman’s publications, directions, investigative powers and published external review decisions;

·    other potential regulators such as the Integrity Commission, which in 2024 issued a report of its investigation into RTI administration by the Department of Health; and

·    annual reporting to the Department of Justice contributing to its annual RTI report which is tabled in Parliament under the RTI Act, section 53.

There is no function for Elected Members under either the RTI Act or the Local Government Act 1993 to involve themselves in the functions of either the Council’s ‘principal officer’ (the CEO) under the RTI Act or the delegated officers that are appointed (consistent with section 24 of the RTI Act) to make decisions under the RTI Act.

The RTI Act is clear in section 21 that decisions in respect of RTI applications are to be made only by the principal officer (the CEO) or a delegated officer.

Where an RTI applicant seeks external review of such a decision to the Ombudsman, then the Ombudsman’s office corresponds with the applicant and the City. It would be inappropriate for the City’s administration to pass on that correspondence.

The Ombudsman invariably publishes their final external review decisions on their website or, in the case of a complaint investigation, by first providing their report to the Minister for tabling in Parliament. Such publication is a decision for the Ombudsman, as is the extent to which their decision quotes or does not quote correspondence with the relevant public authority.

In addition to the Ombudsman, the Integrity Commission can also investigate RTI matters.

If officers are directed to comply with this motion, it would impose a significant additional resourcing requirement on the City’s officer responsible for RTIs and therefore limit the City’s efforts to comply with the RTI Act’s time frames.

It is important for Elected Members to maintain the appropriate separation between their statutory functions and the day-to-day operations and affairs of the council for which the GM/CEO is responsible: Local Government Act, section 62(1)(c).

The City provides its annual RTI statistics to the Department of Justice, then local government RTI statistics form part of a report which is tabled in both Houses of Parliament under section 53(2) of the RTI Act.

Other statutory considerations against this motion include:

·    the RTI Act, by section 6(1)(j), “does not apply to information in the possession of … the Ombudsman”; and

·    the Ombudsman Act 1978 provides in section 23A(3) that “An investigation by the Ombudsman under this Act is to be conducted in private.”

In conclusion, providing the Ombudsman’s correspondence sought by the motion to Elected Members risks compromising both the work of the Ombudsman and the ability of the City to meet its duties under the RTI Act.

Accordingly, it is recommended that this motion not be supported.

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications

Capital City Strategic Plan

Pillar:

Not applicable.

Outcome:

Not applicable.

Strategy:

Not applicable.

Legislation and Policy

Legislation:

Local Government Act 1993, Right to Information Act 2009

Policy:

City of Hobart Information Policy.

Financial Implications

1.   Not applicable.

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

Discussion

The proposal for the Collins Street Bikeway is the result of extensive planning and rigorous investigations into the current performance of the Hobart road network. This process has identified a clear need for investment in a transport system that is reliable, sustainable, and cost-effective.

This proposal aligns with the Greater Hobart Cycling Plan, a strategic initiative developed in collaboration with the Greater Hobart councils and the Tasmanian Government. The plan aims to deliver an interconnected cycling network across Greater Hobart. Collins Street plays a crucial role in this network, providing a cycling connection through the city that cannot be efficiently or effectively replicated on any other street.

To ensure a thorough and evidence-based approach, the City of Hobart engaged expert traffic engineers from Pitt & Sherry to conduct simulation modelling of the Hobart Road network. This modelling was undertaken to accurately assess the impacts of the proposed bikeway. The results of this assessment demonstrate that, operationally, the level of delay on Collins Street with the proposed bikeway is comparable to current conditions, with only minor additional delays anticipated. However, the proposal delivers significant safety improvements for cyclists.

Furthermore, the proposed bikeway has been designed to align with the strategic direction set by the City of Hobart and meets the minimum level of service targets outlined in the Inner Hobart Transport Network Operations Plan (TNOP). The TNOP serves as a critical framework for balancing the competing priorities of various transport modes within the road network, ensuring that different modes receive appropriate operational priority.

The City acknowledges that, as with any technical field, differing professional opinions exist among traffic engineers. However, the Council has relied upon the analytical work conducted by Pitt & Sherry, which provides a balanced and independent assessment of the proposal.

While Collins Street is an important street, the modelling undertaken by the City has identified only minor traffic delays resulting from the proposed bikeway. In contrast, the analysis conducted by Midson Traffic overlooks a key fact: Collins Street is not a designated strategic traffic route. This designation is supported by multiple strategic transport documents developed by both the City of Hobart and the Tasmanian Government, including the Hobart Transport Strategy 2024 and, most importantly, the Inner Hobart Transport Network Operations Plan.

These strategic documents ensure that different transport modes are given priority on appropriate roads, creating a more efficient network for all users. For example, the Bathurst, Barrack, and Brisbane (BBB) Street network has been designed to facilitate quicker and more reliable traffic flows. Since prioritising these routes, traffic volumes have increased by 20% with no impact on travel times, demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach.

The City of Hobart remains committed to monitoring the overall performance of the inner-city transport network, including Collins Street. The proposed bikeway will be implemented as a trial, and its impact will be closely assessed to ensure that an appropriate level of service is maintained.

Current situation

The City of Hobart is committed to its vision of working together to make Hobart a better place for the community. A visionary statement that was developed in consultation with the community.

It is important to understand that the Midson Report was conducted separate to the City’s broader activities that have researched, reviewed and considered a myriad of variables and factors over an extended period (over 25 years), when recommending the street trial to council for consideration in 2024. 

The Midson Report has not considered any key strategic documents (and in fact lists N/A in the report stating that policy objectives have not been assessed).  In particular:

·      the Central Hobart Plan, (endorsed by Council in 2023) 

·      the Hobart Transport Strategy (endorsed by Council in 2024) 

·      The Inner Hobart Transport Network Operation Plan (adopted by the City of Hobart and the Department of State Growth in 2023) 

·      The Greater Hobart Cycling Plan, supported through the greater Hobart Council’s, the Tasmanian and Australian Governments as part of the Hobart City Deal. 

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications

Capital City Strategic Plan

Pillar:

Pillar 5. Movement and Connectivity

Outcome:

Outcome 5.1 An accessible and connected city environment helps maintain Hobart’s pace of life.

Outcome 5.2 Hobart has effective and environmentally sustainable transport systems.

Pillars:

Pillar 1. Sense of Place

Pillar 4. City Economies

Legislation and Policy

Legislation:

Not applicable

Policy:

Not applicable.

Financial Implications

1.   There are no additional financial implications regarding this motion.

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

Discussion:

1.    The Hobart Football Club (HFC) contacted City of Hobart Sport and Recreation staff on14 February 2025 to advise that given the TCA ground upgrade project was likely to incur a shortfall of around $25,000, the HFC requested that the City of Hobart consider funding this cost gap.

2.   Currently the HFC hold a grant from the Tasmanian Government for $150,000 (of which $135,000 is remaining).

3.   Officers were further advised on 14 February 2025 by the HFC that it has also had received a grant from the AFL for $50,000, and that the Club had arranged approximately $30,000 of in-kind assistance through sponsors to support the project.

4.   The HFC has advised that it does not have any further funding to be able to contribute directly to the project, to meet the anticipated cash shortfall.

5.   There have been increasing instances in recent years of Federal or State Government funding being provided to clubs and associations for projects, for a funding shortfall to be identified as part of project implementation, leading to  subsequent requests to the City of Hobart to meet the funding gap.

6.   The City determines an annual Capital Works Program which considers a range of criteria against which projects are funded.  As part of this process, there are always many proposed projects that do not receive funding, even when they may strongly align to organisational strategies and/or commitments.

7.   However, during any financial year there are projects which do not proceed, come under-budget or have their scopes changed.

8.   This creates a Capital Works Program surplus from which projects listed as lower priorities, and/or new projects outside the initial program may be considered.

9.   Within this context, the Capital Works Committee can and does consider discretionary funding for projects on a case-by-case basis.

10. This process provides a transparent and fair avenue which ensures community benefit and value for money when considering funding.

11. The $25,000 funding request for the TCA ground upgrade project has now been set up in the appropriate program and will be considered by the Capital Works Committee for funding from the Capital Contingency allocation.

Current situation

The Hobart Football Clubrooms are located on the western side of the TCA Ground.  The rooms have been under lease to the Hobart Football Club (HFC) from the City since the grounds ownership was transferred in 2000.

Under the current lease agreement, the Club pay a nominal rental and are responsible for all maintenance and operational costs associated with the building, including internal improvements - however the City is responsible for the structural assets of the building.

The current rooms are functional but there has been very little expenditure on the building since its construction around 1970.  The facility contains open bay showers and antiquated toilet facilities that do not meet current expectations or standards.

The building remains under lease to the football club until 2027.

In 2024 the Club made officers aware that the State Government had made a grant allocation for $150,000 available directly to the Club for a major internal refurbishment of the facility.  The refurbishment will include the removal of all of the current fixtures and fittings which will be replaced with modern facilities.  Separate ‘wet’ areas for male and female participants will be included and both will include separated shower bays.

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications

Capital City Strategic Plan

Pillar:

2 – Community inclusion, participation and belonging.

Outcome:

2.2 Hobart is a place where diversity is celebrated and everyone can belong, and where people have opportunities to learn about one another and participate in city life.

2.4 Hobart communities are safe and resilient, ensuring people can support one another and flourish in times of hardship.

Strategy:

2.2.1 Support people from all backgrounds and life experiences to participate in Hobart life

2.2.3 Provide and support activities and programs that celebrate diversity to reduce social isolation and build social cohesion

2.4.6 Deliver and support initiatives, activities and programs that build community resilience, wellbeing and safety.

Legislation and Policy

Legislation:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1998

Policy:

Capital Works Planning and Management Procedure

Financial Implications:

1.    The annual Capital Works Program is approved by Council each year and there is a specific allocation for use on capital works each year consistent with the above policy.

2.   Should funding be allocated to this project it will be drawn from the Capital Works Program surplus, which is generated through reduced expenditure or projects not proceeding. The project of this process would need to be assessed against other unfunded priority projects.

3.   The project will be considered by the Capital Works Committee for funding from the Capital Contingency allocation at the earliest opportunity.

That the Council resolve by absolute majority that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to regulation 15(1) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 because the items included on the closed agenda contain the following matters:   

·           Minutes of a closed Council meeting

·           Information of a personal and confidential nature

·           Personal hardship

·           Information relating to commercial arrangements

·           Proposals for the Council in interest of land

The following items were discussed:-

Item No. 1          Minutes of the last meeting of the Closed Portion of the Council Meeting

Item No. 2          Communication from the Chairperson

Item No. 3          Leave of Absence

Item No. 4          Consideration of supplementary Items to the agenda

Item No. 5          Indications of pecuniary and conflicts of interest

Item No. 6          Micromobility (E-Scooter) Permit

LG(MP)R 15(2)(b)

Item No. 7          Outstanding Sundry Debts and Debt Write-Offs as at 31 December 2024

LG(MP)R 15(2)(g)

Item No. 8          Questions without Notice

Lohberger

Dutta                                                    That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED
ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

VOTING RECORD