In a move that has raised eyebrows among some community members, the Port Phillip City Council has endorsed the LGBTIQA+ Action Plan 2023-26, despite concerns about the plan's focus and the need for an action plan.
The contentious Action Plan was only voted up because Mayor Cunsolo used her casting vote when the vote was evenly divided because one Councillor voted against the motion and three councillors abstained which has the same effect as an against vote. See below.
The Action Plan, which aims to embed LGBTIQA+ inclusion across council activities, was presented for endorsement following community and staff engagement. However, the consultation process has been criticized by some for its perceived bias towards the pride lobby group and the way it was solicited.
Concerns were raised that the action plan is not necessary because it duplicates existing Council policies and State and federal legislation and includes sections that are outside the remit of Council such as the inclusion of policies for schools and businesses.
Cr Rhonda Clark who voted against the action plan said “I won’t be supporting this plan even though I support LGBTIQA+ community. We don’t need a separate action plan for specific groups in our community. I don’t agree with the procurement policies in this plan because selection of service providers should be blind to gender, race, age, and sexuality. I feel proud for what this Council does for the LGBTIQA+ community and our inclusivity and diversity for all sections of our community but I don’t feel we need this broad and expansive plan and some of the policies of the plan”.
The council's decision to focus heavily on LGBTIQA+ inclusivity, rather than adopting a broader approach that encompasses other diverse groups, has been met with concern. Critics argue that this narrow focus risks marginalizing other community members and could lead to a divisive "us vs. them" mentality.
Cr Pearl said, “Council celebrates and embraces its diverse LGBTIQA+ community for its invaluable contribution to the social and economic life of the city. I will abstain for voting on this policy because but there are sections that I disagree with including advancing LGBTIQA+ inclusion in schools and businesses which is outside the remit of council. I don’t believe $50,000 spent recently on repainting the rainbow street is good value for money when the initial cost was $18,000 and the purpose was to signal the Pride Centre was coming”.
Cr Sirakoff said “We are all supportive of the LGBTIQA+ community and we are all proud to have the Pride Centre in St Kilda. I am partially supportive of the action plan, but I don’t agree with including procurement in the policy because our tender processes should not favour any one group over another which is consistent with state and federal laws”.
Furthermore, the council's plan to capture data on the LGBTIQA+ community to inform the development of the next iteration of the Action Plan has raised privacy concerns. Critics argue that this could lead to unnecessary intrusion into people's personal lives and question whether the council has the necessary safeguards in place to protect this sensitive data.
The council's decision to proceed with the LGBTIQA+ Action Plan, despite these concerns, suggests a disregard for the views of a significant portion of the community. It raises questions about the council's commitment to genuine community consultation and its ability to balance the needs and interests of all community members.
As the council moves forward with its implementation of the Action Plan, it must ensure that it addresses these concerns and works to promote inclusivity in a way that respects the diversity and complexity of the community it serves. Anything less would be a disservice to the people of Port Phillip.
Votes for: Cr Baxter, Cr Crawford, Cr Cunsolo, Cr Martin
Votes against: Cr Clark
Abstained: Cr Bond, Cr Peral, Cr Sirakoff
Image: Midsumma Pride March are seen along Fitzroy Street in St Kilda. Source: AAP
