a serious perversion of democratic process.
The Mayor unilaterally held back two resolutions from full Council - resolutions that had already been debated and endorsed by our Finance and Policy Committee. In the background, he’s been engaging in closed-door conversations to undermine a legitimate decision made under delegated authority on our procurement process.
That’s not leadership. It’s interference. And it strikes at the very core of the checks and balances that safeguard integrity in governance.
So, what’s the issue at hand? A simple, reasonable step: asking companies whether they collect data on diversity when bidding for Council contracts. Not demanding the data. Not requiring quotas. Just asking: do you track who you hire?
This is ethical procurement 101. It’s about recognising that diversity and inclusion are markers of good business. It’s about aligning our practices with modern ESG - Environmental, Social, and Governance - standards. And it’s about setting a forward-thinking tone, signalling where we’re heading without forcing anyone’s hand.
We’re not digging through HR files. We’re not penalising businesses for where they’re at. We’re simply holding up a mirror and asking: do you even look? Because that alone tells us a great deal about a company’s values.
Opponents of this approach argue that even asking the question might deter companies from applying- that they’ll assume the information is being used to screen or exclude. But that logic doesn’t hold. If simply asking whether a business collects diversity data is enough to scare them off, what does that say about their practices? We ask for insurance details, health and safety plans, environmental impacts - none of which are treated as optional. Diversity is no different. It’s part of doing good business in today’s world. Transparency isn't a threat. It’s a standard.
And let’s be clear - this isn’t new ground. We’ve already set precedent around social good in procurement. Just look at our long-standing relationship with Recycle South, which includes deliberate social benefit provisions. We’ve recognised before that when we’re spending community money, the outcomes should reflect community values. Why should this be any different?
To sabotage that through backroom manoeuvring? That’s not good governance. That’s self-interest dressed up as oversight. And I won’t sit quietly while it happens.
Tonight, Councillors voted to give the Mayor another bite at the cherry, with a clear division of sides and a split vote which the Mayor had to use his casting vote on. Despite him openly admitting he would keep holding the vote until we “got the decision right.” Let’s be clear: what that really means is “until we get the outcome I want.”
In protest, the chair of the committee, Cr Lesley Soper and councillors Cr Steve Broad, Cr Darren Ludlow, Cr Pottinger and myself voted not to receive any of the minutes from the Finance and Policy Committee, due to the perversion of the process.
Using the democratic process to force a do-over - after a decision has been properly debated, voted on, and endorsed by the responsible committee - is not just wrong. It’s disgraceful. It cheapens the work of councillors, undermines public trust and sets a dangerous precedent for governance in this city.
We must demand better. Our community deserves nothing less.