QVM review process only raising further questions

The City of Melbourne’s terms of reference for its independent review into Queen Victoria Market Pty Ltd have landed, but they may only deepen the governance question that has surrounded this process from the beginning.

The review will examine the management and governance arrangements of QVM Pty Ltd – the City of Melbourne’s independent, wholly owned subsidiary responsible for operating the market.

This was not a process initiated by council officers. It was moved by Cr Rafael Camillo and seconded by finance chair Cr Owen Guest at the March 31 council meeting, before being supported by a majority of councillors.

The City of Melbourne has now confirmed KordaMentha has been appointed to conduct the review in what is likely to be a costly exercise for ratepayers.

“The independent review of Queen Victoria Market will help protect the future of one of Melbourne's most significant cultural, heritage and community assets,” a City of Melbourne spokesperson said.

“The review will focus on market management, including engagement with traders and customers, operational and financial performance, and the visitor experience.”

According to the terms of reference, the review will assess whether current arrangements deliver the best outcomes for the City of Melbourne, considering governance practice, accountability, effectiveness and alignment with council’s strategic objectives.

It will consider board composition, capability, performance and accountability; financial governance; operational delivery; trader and customer experience; heritage and placemaking; and benchmarking against comparable municipal and public markets.

On paper, that is a broad scope. In practice, the most significant exclusion may be what it does not expressly examine: the City of Melbourne’s own performance as owner, shareholder and steward of the market.

That omission is not simply an administrative oversight. The administration has prepared terms of reference based on what councillors resolved to do. If the review now risks leaving key questions unanswered, responsibility rests with the elected councillors who pushed for it without first resolving its scope, cost or purpose in sufficient detail.

That matters because QVM Pty Ltd does not operate in a vacuum. The market’s trading environment, financial outlook and public experience are shaped by council decisions – from the long-running renewal program to Gurrowa Place, Market Square, parking, access, construction staging, heritage and the wider precinct strategy.

The council said QVM Pty Ltd operated independently in its day-to-day management and governance, while the City of Melbourne, as owner, was responsible for the strategic and financial oversight of the precinct, with decisions made through normal council processes.

It said the terms of reference had been established based on the March 31 resolution, covering the market’s governance model, management and board performance, operational effectiveness, financial performance, trader and customer engagement, and heritage and placemaking outcomes.

That response underlines the dilemma. If councillors wanted a review that properly examined the relationship between the market company and its shareholder, they needed to say so when commissioning it.

Instead, the current terms risk setting up a review that looks closely at the subsidiary while leaving the shareholder largely outside the frame.

That concern is not new. When councillors voted 10-1 in favour of the review, Cr Dr Olivia Ball was the only councillor to oppose it. Her objection was not to review as a concept, but to its fairness and timing while the market remained in the middle of a council-led renewal program.

At the time, she warned that the “elephant in the room” was the renewal program itself. The terms of reference, and council’s response, suggest that elephant remains largely outside the frame because councillors allowed it to remain there.

The City of Melbourne said the Queen Victoria Market Precinct Renewal Program would continue to progress in line with the project masterplan.

The final report is due to council by March 31, 2027, and is expected to include analysis of governance and management performance, recommendations to improve management, governance and accountability, and a high-level implementation plan.

The terms also promise stakeholder engagement, including surveys, workshops, written submissions and one-on-one interviews where appropriate. Stakeholders include the QVM board and management, City of Melbourne management, traders, customers, residents, local businesses, and heritage and community advocacy groups.

But another unresolved question, which CBD News put to the council, is whether stakeholders will be able to make submissions about council conduct and precinct decisions, or only about QVM Pty Ltd’s performance. If the latter, engagement risks gathering evidence about symptoms while excluding some causes.

Friends of Queen Victoria Market, which has strongly supported an independent review, has also expressed concern that QVM Pty Ltd could be unfairly judged if the council’s role is not properly considered.

The market remains one of Melbourne’s most important civic assets. Few dispute the need for transparency, accountability and a stronger long-term footing.

But if councillors have commissioned a review that examines the subsidiary without fully examining the shareholder, they may have limited its usefulness before it has even begun.