Fremantle market breaches and council promises

Stallholders addess to Fremantle council 24th June 2009.

Council’s April Report identified a number of breaches to the Fremantle Markets head lease by the Murdoch’s. At last months Council meeting I emphasized the need to address the breaches as quickly as possible because the longer they drag on the more difficult it gets for many stallholders. We are therefore understandably concerned to find out that only one of the breaches is currently being addressed… the determination of “fair market rent” through an independent review.

Also as a result of the report and the upcoming review, you wrote to the Murdoch’s asking them to cease any further rent increases until the matter is resolved. They have defied you…. At the start of June the rents were increased. These increases were in the vicinity of 25%. Did you merely make this recommendation as an option or do you have the clout to follow through?

In respect to the enforcement of your authority, the council appears to be constrained by the head lease, vulnerable to the litigious nature of the Murdoch’s and lacking in power or recourse.

Another of the breaches which has also been flaunted since the April report is the Murdoch’s failure to hold the May quarterly Working Group meeting with stallholders. In the first year of this new lease only two of four, of these important meetings, have taken place and only one of these meeting was attended by a council officer. These meetings were devised as a way to expedite information between the Working Group and stallholders and also to substitute for not including a stallholder representative on the Working Group. They are also a farce.

So, we made a submission to council 3 months ago on how they could be improved, to produce tangible outcomes. We based this submission on discussions we had with the Adelaide Central and Queen Victoria Market management. To date we have heard nothing regarding our suggestions.

If these meetings had been taken seriously and conducted in accordance with the spirit and conditions of the Operating Strategy they may have helped to identify and overcome some of the issues we are currently facing. Glen…why has the Working Group ignored these meetings?

A fortnight ago the Stallholders Association initiated a meeting with the Murdoch’s in an attempt to recommence dialogue after a long period of silence between us. They said it wasn’t their responsibility to call a meeting with us. We have attempted to do this in the past and have also invited them to some of our Association meetings but they have declined. I’m telling you this so you know we are not uncooperative or opposed to constructive dialogue.

We were told then by Jamie another 20-30 stalls have now been identified as incompatible with the new direction for the Markets. What will happen to these stallholders? This is nothing short of culling; long term tenants are being sacrificed and families left financially devastated. This is not looking good and I can see more bad publicity coming from this.

It also became clear in that meeting that there is a major difference in perception between the Murdoch’s and the City. Prior to the lease being signed both Glen and the Mayor told stallholders “our businesses would be safe and we would all have security of tenure”. The problem with this undertaking was that it was either never clearly conveyed to the Murdoch’s, or if it was, they know, because they hold the “head lease”, they have ultimate control of the markets ... irrespective of the Working Group, the Operating Strategy or the City’s commitment to stallholders.

I want to make it clear to all the council that many of our members feel as if they were conned into supporting the Murdoch bid based on what council had said and what the Murdoch’s had told them. Addressing the “fair market rent” issue is one thing but council must take seriously the number of times that the Murdoch’s made apparent misrepresentations during the business plan and also the City’s role in creating this perception that our businesses would be safe. . …these are serious concerns for everyone.

At least half the councilors here tonight heard Glen make those commitments not once but twice at our Business Plan Meeting in December 07 at the South Fremantle Football Club. The safety and tenure of our businesses were always a major concern for stallholders during the lease negotiations and is the reason why on that evening Mark Scott asked Glen the same question twice. We wanted reassurance. …and you gave it to us…or so we thought.

Glen, you would be well aware of the emphasis we placed on this and also the “transition period” between the leases. In our public submission we said “Stallholders impacted by the turnover plan should be given a “transitional period” to allow them time to either reinvent their business or sell up and realize their “good will”. We also suggested these stallholders should have a right of appeal.”

Stallholders now question if the City has the will or commitment to address our plight. Most believe you will just batten down the hatches, ride it out and consider the stallholders who have had their lives turned upside down as “collateral damage”. Remember many of these small business owners have invested in the Markets and can see their savings and hard work evaporating… that’s not to mention the Richard Murphy’s and others who have lost everything.

Yesterday we met with the valuer undertaking the “independent rent review”. His terms of reference for that review have been prepared by Hotchkin Hanly, the Murdoch lawyer’s … Jackson Macdonald, the City’s lawyers did have input but it is unbelievable, with the rent issue being so contentious, the City would have followed this path. The stallholders and ratepayers want transparency and this seems to be a conflict of interest. The questions therefore are;
Did the City engage Hotchkin Hanly? Who determined the terms of reference? Why didn’t the City prepare this brief?

Most of you who want to wear the mayoral chains supported the Murdoch’s bid for the new lease. If there is a real Mayor in the room please step up now with a plan of action. It is up to all the councilors who backed the lease to make sure that what was in the business plan is followed through on. Don’t leave it up to the other councilors and please don’t insult us by suggesting the softly, softly approach will work. Unless you address the issues responsible for this debacle and put them right then you are only band aiding the sores…. It will be a never ending headache for the City.