Whose agenda?

Meeting procedures matter, no more so than when they operate to allow - or prevent - debate and consideration of important issues.

The Agenda for the Ordinary Council meeting of the City of Yarra (an inner east local government in Melbourne) scheduled for 26 November 2024 included Notice of Motion No. 19. The subject of the motion? One one view it was confirmation of a “desire for change as expressed in the recent election” (clause 1 of the motion). On another (better) view there was no single subject - there were at least eleven subjects, spread across 36 clauses. Topics included bicycle lanes, oval redevelopment, cancellation of a proposed park, housing, planning issues, parking and fees and charges.

The motion was passed, despite some criticism. The former Mayor (Councillor Wade) is reported (The Age 28 November 2024) to have been “deeply uncomfortable” with the format:

“‘It means you avoid scrutiny on individual decisions that, in their own right, are very important ones,’ Wade said, adding that the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission recommended banning such “en bloc” voting in its Operation Sandon probe.”

Surely the joining of multiple issues into a single motion has long since been prohibited? Apparently not.

A brief survey of local government Governance Rules in New South Wales and Victoria reveals the following:

• the Chief Executive of the City of Ballarat is required to reject a notice of motion in several circumstances (for example, a motion which is too vague) - but the inclusion of multiple issues in a single motion is not one (Clause 3.8.2);

• the Chair of a meeting of the City of Sydney may decide to put a motion to the vote in several parts (clause 33) - but is not required to do so;

• Speaking times are limited at meetings of the Merri-bek City Council. Speakers on a motion (that is, a single motion, not a single issue) are given three minutes with the possibility of only one extension of time (clause 3.9.12).