Context
Much had happened in the first month of the new Council. At the ceremonial meeting where councillors were first sworn in, councillors had unwittingly given Mayor Boult total, unilateral authority to vote on all QAC shareholder resolutions without council knowledge or endorsement for the full trimester term of this Council.
And, with agreement on the QAC statement of intent still outstanding, Mayor Boult now proposed a new steering group. This would not be a subcommittee of the Council. Instead, it would comprise two of QAC’s board members and its CEO together with the mayor and two councillors chosen by the mayor.
While good spin might suggest this arrangement enables a collaborative approach for preparing the statement of intent, the effect and likely intent is to further distance and obstruct the councillor’s control over the company. The steering group will easily be dominated in favour of QAC interests. Its recommendations will then present as a fait accompli to other councillors. It muddies, rather than clarifies, the council’s authority to govern and direct the Council-Controlled Trading Organisation.
QLDC full council meeting
December 12, 2019
Good afternoon, I am John Hilhorst representing FlighPlan2050
Regarding item two of the agenda, I applaud the removal of the continuous and unfettered proxy that had been given to Mayor Boult to vote on all QAC shareholder resolutions for the full three-year duration of the council term.
The granting of the proxy had been ‘sprung’ unannounced on councillors at their first ceremonial meeting as they were signed in post-election. With the council having a super-majority shareholding, the proxy gave Mayor Boult complete, unilateral control over QAC without any requirement to consult with or to act under the direction of the council.
[The proxy was either an extremely cynical attempt to side-line councillors or an example of an incompetent governance process.]
On the steering group proposed in agenda item one.
I appreciate that this shows the council’s intent in seeking to resolve the current SOI impasse. But I have deep misgivings about the nature and composition of this proposed steering group.
We have for a long time now suffered from a collective lack of understanding of the strategic control that council has over QAC. Both councillors and our community are only just beginning to realise that QAC is not an independent company tasked with a profit and growth motive.
Instead, we now know that its objectives are, pure and simple, those that are written into its SOI. And that these objectives can be both commercial and non-commercial.
We also know that these objectives must be aligned with the council’s objectives, as it is the controlling shareholder and must act according to its purpose under the Local Government Act. So, the council’s ownership of QAC must promote the social, cultural, environmental and economic well-being of our communities.
And we know that council has absolute control to direct QAC as to what its objectives and the nature and scope of its activities must be.
Finally, we had thought, that the proper control of QAC’s strategic direction was coming back to the council. That it would be democratic. And that it would have the interests and the well-being of our communities paramount.
My concern with this proposed steering group is that it would put the power back to QAC. It would blur the distinction between democratic and commercial roles into non-existence.
It gives the appearance of equally balanced numbers, but the weight of expertise and strength of voice would sit overwhelmingly with QAC and with its narrative of growth.
The group’s recommendations would become jointly owned and the room for dissent squeezed out well before they are brought to the full council.
This runs directly counter to all that has been achieved so far.
We challenge you to take control on behalf of the communities you represent. That instead of this steering group, you form a subcommittee of the council and task it to work through this process. Empower it to consult with the executive and board of QAC. And have it report back recommendations to your full council.
This would ensure proper clarity of role and purpose. It would avoid corporate capture by QAC. It would ensure the power remains with the council, where it properly belongs. It would enable you to more properly represent your constituents.
We ask that you reject part five of agenda item one, and instead form a subcommittee of the council to fulfil this important role.
Thank you.