By Ingrid Jackson
When I was first elected to Noosa Council, I expected debates would involve the presentation of rational arguments – supported by research, evidence and facts – to persuade other councillors.
I was soon to be disabused of this. I found rational discourse was rarely persuasive in the face of pre-established positions, personal opinions or the desire to win at any cost. It turned out that some councillors were bent on using a range of debating tricks. To the best of my knowledge, I never enjoined in this. I found it unhelpful to good decision-making and, bluntly, a waste of time.
At first these games puzzled me and later they angered me. I decided I needed to develop some counter tactics. A little research revealed that there is a technical term for many of these techniques – ‘debating fallacies’, defined as “errors in reasoning to undermine the logic of an argument often lacking evidence to support their claims”.
After four years’ experience, I’m very familiar with these debating fallacies and the other tricks. I see them in use at all levels of government. I am no longer taken in and I’m never impressed.
Another unexpected ruse, which I learned to anticipate, is the abuse of Standing Orders (the council’s approved meeting rules).
During the induction of councillors in April-May 2016, the CEO cautioned against using Standing Orders to oppose each other. As a brand new councillor, I did not know what this meant in application but it sounded like good advice. Others were not so compliant.
As time went on, familiarity grew and robust debates began in earnest. From time to time some councillors began to use Standing Orders to stop me from speaking on issues where I held views they disapproved of. Freedom of speech tended to take a beating. (Fortunately there was always social media.)
FALLACIES, MISREPRESENTATIONS AND TRICKS
Too often in debate, fallacies, misrepresentations and tricks are used to ‘win’ a point or argument. Perhaps some regard them as clever, but I consider them underhanded and even unethical. That said, they are not unlawful and are commonly used. The big problem for the community is that, if not called out, these tactics can result in very flawed decisions. Here are a few I became familiar with at Noosa Council, even though I did not use them myself.
The straw man
A ‘straw man’ is a form of argument which gives the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument but in fact argues against a proposition that has not been advanced. This can take the form of inventing an extreme position and then arguing it is irrational.
This technique, frequently adopted in Noosa Council, was at its most blatant when, during debates about the new Noosa Plan, the threat of high rise development was evoked. The argument put was that any slight diversion would result in a developers’ picnic.
Appeal to authority & the role of dissent
In an appeal to authority, it is argued that something is true because an expert has said it. Commonly the reference to authority is made out of context.
In Noosa Council debates, examples included:
– councillors themselves claiming to be authorities in certain fields (e.g. town planning, architecture and design, sport, Indigenous affairs, community consultation processes)
– referring to council staff as experts whose opinions must not be questioned
– fictitious authorities – “I talked to a legal eagle mate the other day, and he told me … .”
This appeal was even extended to appropriating ‘democracy’ as a rhetorical tool. It was claimed, for example, that I was being ‘undemocratic’ when I questioned whether council should defend against an appeal of a council refusal of a development.
The assumption seemed to be that in a democracy once a majority votes one way, all councillors had to support the outcome. Of course that is not democratic, it is totalitarian.
In a democracy, councillors are entitled to a voice, regardless of whether or not others agree. On a number of occasions, my voice was silenced by the majority and I was not allowed to speak.
Democracy is about councillors being elected to have a voice on behalf of the community. This voice must not be diminished just because a majority think otherwise. Dissent is a powerful part of democracy.
“May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion,” said former US president Dwight Eisenhower.
In law, the Local Government Act and Councillor Code of Conduct require only that councillors acknowledge the council’s decision when making opposing statements.
Appeal to ‘the people’
A similar fallacy is ad populum (‘appeal to the people’), an argument which concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it.
In Noosa Council debates, a councillor may claim to have been in touch with many people in the community (always unnamed) who have voiced support for their position. There is rarely evidence to support this assertion.
It is important in such debates that councillors do bring forward vox populi (the people’s voice) based on honest and impartial assessment and not purport that their own opinion is that voice. At base, making such representations is a matter of personal integrity.
Anecdotal evidence
Anecdotal evidence is related to ad populum in that it is collected in a casual or informal way and relies heavily or entirely on personal testimony. Anecdotes are frequently the enemy of evidence.
Something is anecdotal if only one or very few residents relate a particular experience. Unless this is confirmed by broader evidence, it should not be generalised as if it were a community-wide issue. However a vivid example may be compelling to other councillors, even though it is not well-founded as a general truth.
Cherry picking
This is a deliberate presentation of incomplete data. For example, selecting cases or evidence that supports a particular position while ignoring contradictory information.
Generalisation
Generalising is the fallacy of leaping to a broad conclusion from a small sample. During my term on council much was made of a single street said to have problems with a claimed number of premises used for Airbnb.
From this unnamed street emerged plentiful argument that this was the way things could end up being throughout the shire and that short stay letting should be stopped or residents would be severely discommoded. This generalisation was a form of fear mongering or hyperbole – presenting an argument as an exaggerated worst case scenario.
Ad hominem behaviour
This recourse to personal attack is colloquially known as ‘playing the man and not the ball’. An opponent’s argument is ignored and used as a trigger for a personal assault on character, experience, credentials or motives.
Similarly, calling someone a hypocrite aims to discredit another party by asserting they have failed to act consistently with their previous position or statements. When I questioned the chairperson of the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation on a number of issues, another councillor called my questioning hypocritical. To this day, I do not know on what basis.
On Noosa Council ad hominem behaviour was also deployed in a more subtle way by diminishing a new councillor as a ‘newbie’ (suggesting a lack of knowledge and credibility in debate). Another favoured ploy, directed at me with fervour, was to seek leverage by calling me out for coming from Sydney (all but one of the other councillors had come from other Australian cities, but I was the most recently arrived).
Ridiculing the argument
Similar to an ad hominem attack but lacking its direct personal emphasis is ‘pooh-poohing’: disregarding the merits or substance of an argument and dismissing it as unworthy of serious consideration. This may also involve quoting another’s words out of context, misrepresenting their position, oversimplifying their argument or trivialising what they have said.
Thin edge of the wedge
The thin edge of the wedge is a term suggesting that a relatively small decision will inevitably lead to a chain of escalating events culminating in some negative impact. The suggestion is that supporting a recommendation should be avoided because it will inevitably have regrettable consequences.
In Noosa Council this ‘thin edge of the wedge’ term frequently takes the form of a decision or action being characterised pejoratively as an undesirable ‘precedent’, when in most cases it is merely an action that may or may not be repeated at some time in the future. Courts determine precedents; councils do not.
Finally
These and other debating tactics – such as red herrings, false analogies and filibusters (lengthy monologues to bamboozle fellow councillors) can be used to replace valid, rational and respectful argument. They often lead to poor decision-making.
ABUSE & EXPLOITATION OF STANDING ORDERS
I enumerate here a number of rules in the council Standing Orders that are open for abuse for political ends.
That the motion be put
Normally once a motion is moved and seconded, each councillor gets a chance to speak once and the proposer gets to speak again at the end, as a right of reply.
To prevent me from speaking, one councillor would move a procedural motion “that the motion be put” which means debate is to end and a vote taken immediately. This ‘gag’ motion needs a seconder and a majority vote. It usually requires some collusion to succeed.
That the motion be deferred
A councillor not satisfied with a proposed motion can move a motion to defer the item in the hope that they may move a differing motion at the next meeting.
This was done when I supported a staff recommendation to allow a petrol station in the industrial area of Cooroy. It was deferred until after Christmas, when a revised motion came back including a condition making the development unfeasible. It was approved but has never been implemented.
Points of order
In reality, Noosa Council’s Standing Orders allow points of order for a very few reasons:
– another councillor has failed to comply with proper procedures
– the matter is in contravention of the Local Government Act, Regulations or Standing Orders
– the matter is beyond the jurisdictional power of the council
But the process is often abused to stop a speaker by tactically claiming they are not speaking directly to the motion before council. This happened to me on many occasions to stop me speaking to a motion. Other councillors were allowed to ramble on at will without intervention.
I have noticed on the council elected in 2020 that newer, usually female, councillors are given no or little leeway whereas male councillors are allowed to roam free.
A case in point occurred at a January 2021 meeting at which the CEO made it clear at the beginning of the meeting that it was about council considering the planning assessment of a council development application for a hinterland playground, not about the merits of the playground itself.
Most councillors stayed on topic, however one councillor’s speech was not about the development assessment process but about the benefits of council constructing the playground. Irrelevant, but allowed.
Finally
None of these tactics are fair. They are an abuse of Standing Orders, the rules of the game. As time went by and I easily recognised this behaviour, I began to refer to it publicly at meetings, in the media and on social media.
I believe I gained a lot of community support for playing a straight bat, but some councillors were not happy with my public disclosure of their meeting behaviour and began more serious attacks on me through formal channels outside the council. But that is a story for another day.
