Councillors vote for independent Queen Victoria Market governance review

City of Melbourne councillors have voted 10-1 to commission an independent review into the management and governance of Queen Victoria Market, setting up what could become one of the most consequential examinations of the institution in more than a decade.

The notice of motion, moved by Cr Rafael Camillo and seconded by finance chair Cr Owen Guest at the March 31 council meeting, calls for an external review of the market’s management entity, governance structure, financial sustainability, trader and customer satisfaction, and alignment with council’s strategic objectives for the precinct. It also seeks a five-month interim report and a final report within 12 months.

In presenting the motion, Cr Camillo described the market as “one of the beating hearts of Melbourne” and framed the review as an opportunity to strengthen rather than punish.

This review is an opportunity, a chance to bring everyone together,  he said. “It’s not about criticism. It is about building on what we have.

Cr Guest, who had earlier the same day been described by the Lord Mayor as the council’s “fiscal hawk” during the draft budget launch, backed the proposal in simpler terms, saying he saw it as “looking for a win-win”.

On one level, the arguments for a review are easy to follow. The market is one of Melbourne’s most significant civic and economic assets, the last major strategic review was in 2015, and there have been longstanding concerns among some traders and advocates about communication, transparency, operating costs and the way waste and utility charges are being passed on.

The motion itself cites the need for a contemporary review of governance, accountability and performance, and notes trader and community feedback about affordability, activation, decision-making and balancing commercial outcomes with heritage and place-making objectives.

Friends of Queen Victoria Market, whose members packed the chamber on the night and applauded repeatedly as councillors spoke in favour, have welcomed the decision as a "turning point" in the long-running disputes surrounding the market’s renewal. The group has for years opposed aspects of the council’s wider renewal agenda, including Market Square, and in more recent months has supported trader protests against QVM Pty Ltd over rising charges.

In a statement to North West City News, the Friends of QVM said the review was “long overdue”, but argue its value will depend on the final terms of reference, the depth of the inquiry and the independence of the consultant appointed.

They say the review should take a forensic look at the market’s management structure, governance, finances and operational inefficiencies, while also properly considering trader, resident and wider stakeholder concerns, including the passing on of waste costs to traders.

The group also argues QVM was not “paying its way”, pointing to ongoing council letters of comfort, and says the future of the open-air car park should be explicitly included because it remains critical to trader operations, customer access and the market’s living heritage.

QVM Pty Ltd CEO Matt Elliott said, "We welcome the review”.

“In recent years the market has navigated significant challenges, including a major renewal program, the disruption that comes with transforming one of Australia's most complex heritage sites while keeping it open and trading and the ongoing impacts of COVID,” he said.

“Through all of that, visitation has grown strongly, new trader businesses have opened, and we've received positive independent audits annually.”

“The last formal review was in 2015, and a lot has changed since then. It's appropriate for the City of Melbourne to take stock. We take our responsibilities to our traders, our customers and the City of Melbourne seriously, and we'll engage with this process fully.”

But while support for the review was broad, the debate also exposed a series of important governance and timing concerns.

Cr Dr Olivia Ball was the sole councillor to vote against the motion. Her objection was not to the idea of review itself, but to what she argued was the wrong review at the wrong time.

“The elephant in the room that is not mentioned in this motion is the QVM renewal program,” she said.

Cr Dr Ball argued that the market company was being judged in the middle of a renewal process that was still incomplete, materially changed the operating environment, and remained clouded by uncertainty around staging and timing. She pointed out that the council, as QVM’s sole shareholder, had not updated its statement of shareholder expectations since 2017 and had not provided clear public direction on how and when the long-running renewal program would be completed.

In Cr Dr Ball's view, that omission matters. If the shareholder has not clearly reset expectations in light of a project now years behind schedule, then it is difficult to review the board and management in isolation from the council’s own role in creating uncertainty.

That concern goes to the heart of the review’s scope. The motion is focused on management and governance, not on the City of Melbourne’s handling of the renewal program itself. Yet for many observers, the two are deeply intertwined. As Cr Phil Le Liu acknowledged in debate, the council has itself helped create a difficult operating environment, having chosen years ago to manage the renewal directly despite the site’s unusual complexity, including heritage constraints and the former cemetery beneath the southern car park.

There were also concerns about process. Cr Dr Ball unsuccessfully sought to amend the motion so that the terms of reference would come back to council for formal endorsement, rather than being prepared by the CEO “working with councillors”. She argued that if the council was reviewing governance, it should hold itself to the highest governance standards and avoid behind-the-scenes collaboration without a clear decision gateway.

CEO Alison Leighton responded that either approach would be workable, saying the original wording still enabled a “collegiate approach” between councillors and management. But the exchange left unresolved the underlying question Cr Dr Ball was raising: whether collegiality is enough, or whether formal governance clarity is needed when the council is reviewing both the board and management of its wholly owned subsidiary.

That question is sharpened by the makeup of the councillor group itself. Among those who may help shape the terms of reference is Cr Mark Scott, who is also a Queen Victoria Market trader.

Another issue is cost. The motion asks for options and estimated costs for engaging an external consultant, but at this stage neither the consultant nor the likely price tag is known. That uncertainty stood out on the very same night the council endorsed a draft budget built around spending restraint, delayed capital works and a strong focus on debt reduction. Reviews of this scale can be extremely expensive over time, particularly if they involve broad stakeholder engagement, benchmarking and governance analysis.

There is also the question of whether the board itself should have been the first focus. In ordinary circumstances, it is typically the role of a board to review management. Here, the council is proposing to review both board and management at once.

Still, supporters argue that is precisely why an external review is needed. The current board has had continuity for some years, with figures such as chair Jane Fenton and Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary Luke Hilakari serving lengthy tenures. For proponents, that continuity strengthens rather than weakens the case for a fresh independent look.

The motion passed 10-1, with Cr Dr Ball's reasons for opposition recorded in the minutes. The next key step will be the drafting of terms of reference and the return of consultant options and costs to the council before the review formally begins. Whether it proves a constructive reset or an expensive distraction may depend less on the vote itself than on what exactly councillors choose to examine. •