Expanding Melbourne

Melbourne’s Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, has called for action to stop Melbourne’s sprawl.

Source: Ellen Whinnett, Sunday Herald Sun

Doyle as usual is good on making statements but has failed to follow up in detail any plan or proposal to implement any change.

Instead of implementing piece meal ad-hock planning made under political pressure the State Government needs to review the Cities boundaries and reverse some of the changes imposed on Melbourne by the Kennett Government.

Melbourne City’s boundaries need to be expanded to take in the State seats of Albert Park, Melbourne and Richmond.

It is only with a Greater Melbourne can the State Government begin to tackle the real issues of environment and planning.

In 2007 in the lead up to the Federal election the State Government bowed to local pressure groups and reinstated Kensington as part of the City but it failed to undertake a comprehensive review of the city’s external boundaries. It left Carlton divided and failed to look beyond the cities current boundaries that were established following the Kennett Government;s ill-considered municipal 1992 Municipal review .

The former City of Prahran has much more in common with Melbourne then it does with Chadstone. Given half the chance Prahran and South Yarra would opt to join Melbourne.

The City of Melbourne can not continue to operate in a vacuum. A greater Melbourne covering the inner city region is the best way forward. Common sense and good planning dictate action by the State Government.

Minister Compromised into no action..

Local Government Minister, Dick Wynn, previously advocated a Greater City of Melbourne BUT he is now afraid to implement any change or undertake a review for fear of rocking the boat or upsetting the Central Business district who like things the way they are. Proper planning and good governance has gone astray and play a secondary role to good governance.

The State Governments; preferred option opting is to do nothing, close their eyes and look the other way, a policy of remain a small target in 2010. After all 2010 is an election year.

Any candidate for the state seat of Prahran, Labor Liberal or independent, would be well advised to canvass the electorate as this could be a deciding factor in who represents Prahran.

Expanding Melbourne

Melbourne’s Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, has called for action to stop Melbourne’s sprawl.

Source: Ellen Whinnett, Sunday Herald Sun

Doyle as usual is good on making statements but has failed to follow up in detail any plan or proposal to implement any change.

Instead of implementing piece meal ad-hock planning made under political pressure the State Government needs to review the Cities boundaries and reverse some of the changes imposed on Melbourne by the Kennett Government.

Melbourne City’s boundaries need to be expanded to take in the State seats of Albert Park, Melbourne and Richmond.

It is only with a Greater Melbourne can the State Government begin to tackle the real issues of environment and planning.

In 2007 in the lead up to the Federal election the State Government bowed to local pressure groups and reinstated Kensington as part of the City but it failed to undertake a comprehensive review of the city’s external boundaries. It left Carlton divided and failed to look beyond the cities current boundaries that were established following the Kennett Government;s ill-considered municipal 1992 Municipal review .

The former City of Prahran has much more in common with Melbourne then it does with Chadstone. Given half the chance Prahran and South Yarra would opt to join Melbourne.

The City of Melbourne can not continue to operate in a vacuum. A greater Melbourne covering the inner city region is the best way forward. Common sense and good planning dictate action by the State Government.

Minister Compromised into no action..

Local Government Minister, Dick Wynn, previously advocated a Greater City of Melbourne BUT he is now afraid to implement any change or undertake a review for fear of rocking the boat or upsetting the Central Business district who like things the way they are. Proper planning and good governance has gone astray and play a secondary role to good governance.

The State Governments; preferred option opting is to do nothing, close their eyes and look the other way, a policy of remain a small target in 2010. After all 2010 is an election year.

Any candidate for the state seat of Prahran, Labor Liberal or independent, would be well advised to canvass the electorate as this could be a deciding factor in who represents Prahran.

Expanding Melbourne

Melbourne’s Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, has called for action to stop Melbourne’s sprawl.

Source: Ellen Whinnett, Sunday Herald Sun

Doyle as usual is good on making statements but has failed to follow up in detail any plan or proposal to implement any change.

Instead of implementing piece meal ad-hock planning made under political pressure the State Government needs to review the Cities boundaries and reverse some of the changes imposed on Melbourne by the Kennett Government.

Melbourne City’s boundaries need to be expanded to take in the State seats of Albert Park, Melbourne and Richmond.

It is only with a Greater Melbourne can the State Government begin to tackle the real issues of environment and planning.

In 2007 in the lead up to the Federal election the State Government bowed to local pressure groups and reinstated Kensington as part of the City but it failed to undertake a comprehensive review of the city’s external boundaries. It left Carlton divided and failed to look beyond the cities current boundaries that were established following the Kennett Government;s ill-considered municipal 1992 Municipal review .

The former City of Prahran has much more in common with Melbourne then it does with Chadstone. Given half the chance Prahran and South Yarra would opt to join Melbourne.

The City of Melbourne can not continue to operate in a vacuum. A greater Melbourne covering the inner city region is the best way forward. Common sense and good planning dictate action by the State Government.

Minister Compromised into no action..

Local Government Minister, Dick Wynn, previously advocated a Greater City of Melbourne BUT he is now afraid to implement any change or undertake a review for fear of rocking the boat or upsetting the Central Business district who like things the way they are. Proper planning and good governance has gone astray and play a secondary role to good governance.

The State Governments; preferred option opting is to do nothing, close their eyes and look the other way, a policy of remain a small target in 2010. After all 2010 is an election year.

Any candidate for the state seat of Prahran, Labor Liberal or independent, would be well advised to canvass the electorate as this could be a deciding factor in who represents Prahran.

Pumping the parish Melbourne ‘s want-a-be clowns star lineup

Melbourne City Council hopefuls met last night for auditions for who will be elected and who will eliminated. Voters had a chance to attend one of two public meetings held within the City (Kensington and Carlton)

Less then 100 people attended the Carlton “All Nations Church” most of tyhose in attendance were directly connected with various campaigns. It was difficult to know who, if any, where truely undecided in who they will vote for.

Most punters will decide who they will support based on political alliances and or the statements published in the information instruction booklet that has been set out with ballot papers. Reports in the Herald-Sun have indicated that there is a delay in the dispatch and delivery of ballot papers with many voters reporting that they had yet to receive their ballot papers for the City Council election. Somay voters have not been engaged in the campaign.

Ballot papers must be received by the Victorian Electoral Commission before 4:PM on Friday November 28.

The meeting in Carlton, whilst not that well attended, was never the less informative. If anything it provided an opportunity to meet face to face the candidates for office. The focus of the meeting was generally on the position of Lord mayor with little to no attention given to the Council representatives who are seen as secondary support acts not not the main game.

One of the greatest problems with the current City of Melbourne electoral model is that candidates that nominate for the “leadership team” of Lord mayor and Deputy Lord mayor are in a win or lose election. If they win they are handed the keys to the Limousine and have the right to wear the gold chains and robes of office if they lose they have no opportunity to directly contribute to the cities governance.

The choice of who is elected Lord Mayor is not based on ability, questions of good governance or even policies of the various candidates. Most punters will decide who to support based on public perception and popularity not policies. Many of the Lord mayoral candidates no not have well thought out or detailed policies of governance. Will Fowles “A fresh approach” is still to publish his policies on his web site.

Catherine’s Policy of Opposition

Incumbent hopeful Catherine Ng had difficulty after seven years at the helm, in justifying her position. She put forward a range of pet projects and which included a planned Town Hall campaign of opposition to the Labor State Government in 2010. Who whe was proposing to support was not clear. If you listened and believe what Catherine Ng had to say all the faults and problems facing the City where problems of State administration and that her failure to deliver on governance issues and representation did not come into consideration.

Catherine Ng, once again, was in denial about her refusal to subject the City Council to open public review of its representational model. Catherine, along with other candidates, paid lip service and supported a public review of the system sometime in the next term of office, but she failed to explain why on three previous occasions she rejected outright proposals for a public review to take place prior to current election.

Clearly there is an overwhelming need to review Melbourne representational model. Having to endure another four years of poor representation before a review is implements does not instill confidence in the existing incumbent councillors.

Professionalism versus adversarial politics.

Of the nights performances two candidates’ political forces stood out as being the only candidates worthy of support.

The star performers would have to have been Nick Columb and Peter McMullin’s future team. The rest just fell by the wayside.

Both Nick Columb and Peter McMullin team presented two different and diametrically opposed approaches to governance.

Compliance and perpetuation of much the same with added professionalism.

Peter McMullin has put together an experienced and diversified team capable of working closely with State Government to deliver certain outcomes for the City’s future, although they did not come across at the meeting as a dynamic team they are never the less a team worthy of consideration an their campaign is extensive and costly. If you believe that Local government can best meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and business by working closely with the State Government then McMullin is your best choice.

Adversarial polices for Melbourne

If you believe that the role of Local government is to act independent and in an adversarial role then Nick Columb is a candidate that deserves consideration. Nick has provided a fresh, articlulate and passionate campaign even if he is short on campaign funds. He has pulled no punches and calls a spade a spade following the long held tradition of Australian parish politics of old. He was not proposing a people’s uprising nor was he proposing compliant subordination to Spring Street or pandering to the wishes of the governing tenants of town hall. If elected Nick Columb would provide an interesting four years to come, his style of leadership would be colorful and as vibrant as Melbourne’s Spring Carnival. His forthright criticism of the waste and exuberance in town hall and his manner of doing business gave a clear indication that he was more then capable of advocating a change in direction for the City of Melbourne.

Doyle a familiar dud

The award for dud candidate for the night would go to Robert Doyle’s “Activivate” team. Robert Doyle continues to demonstrate his lack of commitment to Melbourne. Doyle did not turn up to either the Carlton or Kensington meetings, instead he left the campaign to be run by his Deputy Lord mayoral candidate Susan Riley. Susan Riley, who was John So’s first Deputy Lord mayor back in 2001-2004 (before John So dumped her for Gary Singer) was one of the worst Deputy Lord mayors in Melbourne’s history. Her groups policies of reopening Swanston street and building the Edditington tunnel are at complete odds with the direction Melbourne has been heading.

Doyle’s “billboard campaign” relys solely on the recognition factor, Doyle is the most well known of all candidates. The fact that he is considered favourite to win highlights one of the greatest problems of the direct election system. It is about recognition not polcies or ability. A tell tale saign of dislike for fpoyule’s nomination is the fact that all candidates in this election have placed Doyle last or low on their HTV cards.

Nick Columb summed up more or less the prevailing opinon “Robert Doyle is the sort of person you do not want as Lord mayor”. His lack of commitment to this election demonstrates why he failed as opposition leader in 2002 and why, as Nick Columb puts it, “failed politicians should not be allowed to be elected to Town Hall”.

Pumping the parish Melbourne ‘s want-a-be clowns star lineup

Melbourne City Council hopefuls met last night for auditions for who will be elected and who will eliminated. Voters had a chance to attend one of two public meetings held within the City (Kensington and Carlton)

Less then 100 people attended the Carlton “All Nations Church” most of tyhose in attendance were directly connected with various campaigns. It was difficult to know who, if any, where truely undecided in who they will vote for.

Most punters will decide who they will support based on political alliances and or the statements published in the information instruction booklet that has been set out with ballot papers. Reports in the Herald-Sun have indicated that there is a delay in the dispatch and delivery of ballot papers with many voters reporting that they had yet to receive their ballot papers for the City Council election. Somay voters have not been engaged in the campaign.

Ballot papers must be received by the Victorian Electoral Commission before 4:PM on Friday November 28.

The meeting in Carlton, whilst not that well attended, was never the less informative. If anything it provided an opportunity to meet face to face the candidates for office. The focus of the meeting was generally on the position of Lord mayor with little to no attention given to the Council representatives who are seen as secondary support acts not not the main game.

One of the greatest problems with the current City of Melbourne electoral model is that candidates that nominate for the “leadership team” of Lord mayor and Deputy Lord mayor are in a win or lose election. If they win they are handed the keys to the Limousine and have the right to wear the gold chains and robes of office if they lose they have no opportunity to directly contribute to the cities governance.

The choice of who is elected Lord Mayor is not based on ability, questions of good governance or even policies of the various candidates. Most punters will decide who to support based on public perception and popularity not policies. Many of the Lord mayoral candidates no not have well thought out or detailed policies of governance. Will Fowles “A fresh approach” is still to publish his policies on his web site.

Catherine’s Policy of Opposition

Incumbent hopeful Catherine Ng had difficulty after seven years at the helm, in justifying her position. She put forward a range of pet projects and which included a planned Town Hall campaign of opposition to the Labor State Government in 2010. Who whe was proposing to support was not clear. If you listened and believe what Catherine Ng had to say all the faults and problems facing the City where problems of State administration and that her failure to deliver on governance issues and representation did not come into consideration.

Catherine Ng, once again, was in denial about her refusal to subject the City Council to open public review of its representational model. Catherine, along with other candidates, paid lip service and supported a public review of the system sometime in the next term of office, but she failed to explain why on three previous occasions she rejected outright proposals for a public review to take place prior to current election.

Clearly there is an overwhelming need to review Melbourne representational model. Having to endure another four years of poor representation before a review is implements does not instill confidence in the existing incumbent councillors.

Professionalism versus adversarial politics.

Of the nights performances two candidates’ political forces stood out as being the only candidates worthy of support.

The star performers would have to have been Nick Columb and Peter McMullin’s future team. The rest just fell by the wayside.

Both Nick Columb and Peter McMullin team presented two different and diametrically opposed approaches to governance.

Compliance and perpetuation of much the same with added professionalism.

Peter McMullin has put together an experienced and diversified team capable of working closely with State Government to deliver certain outcomes for the City’s future, although they did not come across at the meeting as a dynamic team they are never the less a team worthy of consideration an their campaign is extensive and costly. If you believe that Local government can best meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and business by working closely with the State Government then McMullin is your best choice.

Adversarial polices for Melbourne

If you believe that the role of Local government is to act independent and in an adversarial role then Nick Columb is a candidate that deserves consideration. Nick has provided a fresh, articlulate and passionate campaign even if he is short on campaign funds. He has pulled no punches and calls a spade a spade following the long held tradition of Australian parish politics of old. He was not proposing a people’s uprising nor was he proposing compliant subordination to Spring Street or pandering to the wishes of the governing tenants of town hall. If elected Nick Columb would provide an interesting four years to come, his style of leadership would be colorful and as vibrant as Melbourne’s Spring Carnival. His forthright criticism of the waste and exuberance in town hall and his manner of doing business gave a clear indication that he was more then capable of advocating a change in direction for the City of Melbourne.

Doyle a familiar dud

The award for dud candidate for the night would go to Robert Doyle’s “Activivate” team. Robert Doyle continues to demonstrate his lack of commitment to Melbourne. Doyle did not turn up to either the Carlton or Kensington meetings, instead he left the campaign to be run by his Deputy Lord mayoral candidate Susan Riley. Susan Riley, who was John So’s first Deputy Lord mayor back in 2001-2004 (before John So dumped her for Gary Singer) was one of the worst Deputy Lord mayors in Melbourne’s history. Her groups policies of reopening Swanston street and building the Edditington tunnel are at complete odds with the direction Melbourne has been heading.

Doyle’s “billboard campaign” relys solely on the recognition factor, Doyle is the most well known of all candidates. The fact that he is considered favourite to win highlights one of the greatest problems of the direct election system. It is about recognition not polcies or ability. A tell tale saign of dislike for fpoyule’s nomination is the fact that all candidates in this election have placed Doyle last or low on their HTV cards.

Nick Columb summed up more or less the prevailing opinon “Robert Doyle is the sort of person you do not want as Lord mayor”. His lack of commitment to this election demonstrates why he failed as opposition leader in 2002 and why, as Nick Columb puts it, “failed politicians should not be allowed to be elected to Town Hall”.

Pumping the parish Melbourne ‘s want-a-be clowns star lineup

Melbourne City Council hopefuls met last night for auditions for who will be elected and who will eliminated. Voters had a chance to attend one of two public meetings held within the City (Kensington and Carlton)

Less then 100 people attended the Carlton “All Nations Church” most of tyhose in attendance were directly connected with various campaigns. It was difficult to know who, if any, where truely undecided in who they will vote for.

Most punters will decide who they will support based on political alliances and or the statements published in the information instruction booklet that has been set out with ballot papers. Reports in the Herald-Sun have indicated that there is a delay in the dispatch and delivery of ballot papers with many voters reporting that they had yet to receive their ballot papers for the City Council election. Somay voters have not been engaged in the campaign.

Ballot papers must be received by the Victorian Electoral Commission before 4:PM on Friday November 28.

The meeting in Carlton, whilst not that well attended, was never the less informative. If anything it provided an opportunity to meet face to face the candidates for office. The focus of the meeting was generally on the position of Lord mayor with little to no attention given to the Council representatives who are seen as secondary support acts not not the main game.

One of the greatest problems with the current City of Melbourne electoral model is that candidates that nominate for the “leadership team” of Lord mayor and Deputy Lord mayor are in a win or lose election. If they win they are handed the keys to the Limousine and have the right to wear the gold chains and robes of office if they lose they have no opportunity to directly contribute to the cities governance.

The choice of who is elected Lord Mayor is not based on ability, questions of good governance or even policies of the various candidates. Most punters will decide who to support based on public perception and popularity not policies. Many of the Lord mayoral candidates no not have well thought out or detailed policies of governance. Will Fowles “A fresh approach” is still to publish his policies on his web site.

Catherine’s Policy of Opposition

Incumbent hopeful Catherine Ng had difficulty after seven years at the helm, in justifying her position. She put forward a range of pet projects and which included a planned Town Hall campaign of opposition to the Labor State Government in 2010. Who whe was proposing to support was not clear. If you listened and believe what Catherine Ng had to say all the faults and problems facing the City where problems of State administration and that her failure to deliver on governance issues and representation did not come into consideration.

Catherine Ng, once again, was in denial about her refusal to subject the City Council to open public review of its representational model. Catherine, along with other candidates, paid lip service and supported a public review of the system sometime in the next term of office, but she failed to explain why on three previous occasions she rejected outright proposals for a public review to take place prior to current election.

Clearly there is an overwhelming need to review Melbourne representational model. Having to endure another four years of poor representation before a review is implements does not instill confidence in the existing incumbent councillors.

Professionalism versus adversarial politics.

Of the nights performances two candidates’ political forces stood out as being the only candidates worthy of support.

The star performers would have to have been Nick Columb and Peter McMullin’s future team. The rest just fell by the wayside.

Both Nick Columb and Peter McMullin team presented two different and diametrically opposed approaches to governance.

Compliance and perpetuation of much the same with added professionalism.

Peter McMullin has put together an experienced and diversified team capable of working closely with State Government to deliver certain outcomes for the City’s future, although they did not come across at the meeting as a dynamic team they are never the less a team worthy of consideration an their campaign is extensive and costly. If you believe that Local government can best meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and business by working closely with the State Government then McMullin is your best choice.

Adversarial polices for Melbourne

If you believe that the role of Local government is to act independent and in an adversarial role then Nick Columb is a candidate that deserves consideration. Nick has provided a fresh, articlulate and passionate campaign even if he is short on campaign funds. He has pulled no punches and calls a spade a spade following the long held tradition of Australian parish politics of old. He was not proposing a people’s uprising nor was he proposing compliant subordination to Spring Street or pandering to the wishes of the governing tenants of town hall. If elected Nick Columb would provide an interesting four years to come, his style of leadership would be colorful and as vibrant as Melbourne’s Spring Carnival. His forthright criticism of the waste and exuberance in town hall and his manner of doing business gave a clear indication that he was more then capable of advocating a change in direction for the City of Melbourne.

Doyle a familiar dud

The award for dud candidate for the night would go to Robert Doyle’s “Activivate” team. Robert Doyle continues to demonstrate his lack of commitment to Melbourne. Doyle did not turn up to either the Carlton or Kensington meetings, instead he left the campaign to be run by his Deputy Lord mayoral candidate Susan Riley. Susan Riley, who was John So’s first Deputy Lord mayor back in 2001-2004 (before John So dumped her for Gary Singer) was one of the worst Deputy Lord mayors in Melbourne’s history. Her groups policies of reopening Swanston street and building the Edditington tunnel are at complete odds with the direction Melbourne has been heading.

Doyle’s “billboard campaign” relys solely on the recognition factor, Doyle is the most well known of all candidates. The fact that he is considered favourite to win highlights one of the greatest problems of the direct election system. It is about recognition not polcies or ability. A tell tale saign of dislike for fpoyule’s nomination is the fact that all candidates in this election have placed Doyle last or low on their HTV cards.

Nick Columb summed up more or less the prevailing opinon “Robert Doyle is the sort of person you do not want as Lord mayor”. His lack of commitment to this election demonstrates why he failed as opposition leader in 2002 and why, as Nick Columb puts it, “failed politicians should not be allowed to be elected to Town Hall”.

Sail me a river Gary Singer river cruising

Here is another example of the hypocrisy coming from the John So team looking to become Melbourne’s Next Lord Mayor.

Singer wants to “engage the community” in consultation and feasibility studies to establish a River ferry service up the Yarra.

The idea of a Bayside ferry has been around before.It is not new, but always gets an airing come election time. Melbourne is not Sydney nor is it Brisbane. A Bayside ferry service from Frankston to Melbourne and Williamstown to Docklands has some merit But does it need to travel up the Yarra to Crown Casino?

The environmental and safety effects of a high speed river transportation service is prohibitive for a river the size of the Yarra. But hey Singer needs something to get his name out and about town.

Gary Singer’s proposal for a river ferry service one the Yarra has not been well thought out or researched. Why has it taken him so long to come out and promote this issue? He has been on Council for four years. It’s just another electoral pipe-dream to try and make Singer look good.


Singer is only interested in consulting when it suits his agenda and not the electorate.

Whilst Singer claims he is all for community consultation, like Catherine Ng, Singer thrice refused to allow the community the opportunity to consult and review Melbourne’s representative model. Thrice he and his team voted against consultation and refused to calling on the State Government to include the City of Melbourne into the formal review process. Every other Municipal Council is required to undertake a review every second term. WHY NOT MELBOURNE?

This will be Singer’s farewell swan song and I guess a bottom of the Yarra scheme is well suited to his professional experience. (See Singer trust 1 2 )

Singer is expected to attract no more then 5% of the vote. He is in effect a stooge candidate to collect preferences for Catherine Ng.

3AW – Media Player

Click here if media player does not play

Sail me a river Gary Singer river cruising

Here is another example of the hypocrisy coming from the John So team looking to become Melbourne’s Next Lord Mayor.

Singer wants to “engage the community” in consultation and feasibility studies to establish a River ferry service up the Yarra.

The idea of a Bayside ferry has been around before.It is not new, but always gets an airing come election time. Melbourne is not Sydney nor is it Brisbane. A Bayside ferry service from Frankston to Melbourne and Williamstown to Docklands has some merit But does it need to travel up the Yarra to Crown Casino?

The environmental and safety effects of a high speed river transportation service is prohibitive for a river the size of the Yarra. But hey Singer needs something to get his name out and about town.

Gary Singer’s proposal for a river ferry service one the Yarra has not been well thought out or researched. Why has it taken him so long to come out and promote this issue? He has been on Council for four years. It’s just another electoral pipe-dream to try and make Singer look good.


Singer is only interested in consulting when it suits his agenda and not the electorate.

Whilst Singer claims he is all for community consultation, like Catherine Ng, Singer thrice refused to allow the community the opportunity to consult and review Melbourne’s representative model. Thrice he and his team voted against consultation and refused to calling on the State Government to include the City of Melbourne into the formal review process. Every other Municipal Council is required to undertake a review every second term. WHY NOT MELBOURNE?

This will be Singer’s farewell swan song and I guess a bottom of the Yarra scheme is well suited to his professional experience. (See Singer trust 1 2 )

Singer is expected to attract no more then 5% of the vote. He is in effect a stooge candidate to collect preferences for Catherine Ng.

3AW – Media Player


Click here if media player does not play

Sail me a river Gary Singer river cruising

Here is another example of the hypocrisy coming from the John So team looking to become Melbourne’s Next Lord Mayor.

Singer wants to “engage the community” in consultation and feasibility studies to establish a River ferry service up the Yarra.

The idea of a Bayside ferry has been around before.It is not new, but always gets an airing come election time. Melbourne is not Sydney nor is it Brisbane. A Bayside ferry service from Frankston to Melbourne and Williamstown to Docklands has some merit But does it need to travel up the Yarra to Crown Casino?

The environmental and safety effects of a high speed river transportation service is prohibitive for a river the size of the Yarra. But hey Singer needs something to get his name out and about town.

Gary Singer’s proposal for a river ferry service one the Yarra has not been well thought out or researched. Why has it taken him so long to come out and promote this issue? He has been on Council for four years. It’s just another electoral pipe-dream to try and make Singer look good.


Singer is only interested in consulting when it suits his agenda and not the electorate.

Whilst Singer claims he is all for community consultation, like Catherine Ng, Singer thrice refused to allow the community the opportunity to consult and review Melbourne’s representative model. Thrice he and his team voted against consultation and refused to calling on the State Government to include the City of Melbourne into the formal review process. Every other Municipal Council is required to undertake a review every second term. WHY NOT MELBOURNE?

This will be Singer’s farewell swan song and I guess a bottom of the Yarra scheme is well suited to his professional experience. (See Singer trust 1 2 )

Singer is expected to attract no more then 5% of the vote. He is in effect a stooge candidate to collect preferences for Catherine Ng.

3AW – Media Player


Click here if media player does not play

CEO pitches a curve ball on the eve of his departure

David Pitchford, Melbourne’s soon to depart CEO in an interview reported in the Age Newspaper has made some rather interesting comments. The statements raise more questions and could possible give some insight into why he did not make the grad.

Pitchford had overseen the expansion of the City Council at an unprecedented rate. His out of control unfettered “design me a job” benefits he offered his senior team had left the City facing near bankruptcy. It was not until the Council called in a team of experts management consultants (At an addition cost to the CEO’s $350,000 per year plus benefits remuneration) that the Council began to face reality.

Melbourne has only had three really good Ceos in recent memory. John Young, Elizabeth Proust and Andy Friend. Each person had a different approach and style to governance.

The Council went down hill fast following the appointment of Micheal Malouf (Who most people have forgotten already). It was under Malouf that governance standards declined dramatically and corruption began to set in. The Council no longer maintained a “non-political” professional management. Malouf’s contribution aided and abetted by Alison Lyons lead to the dismissal of the elected City Council who was held out as the escape goat for poor governance whilst Maklouf and the administration escaped blame or accountability. Sure there were just reasons to dismiss the City Council at the time but the situation was made worst by a CEO who was out of his depth.

Part of the solution introduced by the then Minister (He did not last long) Bob Cameron was the introduction of a directly elected Lord Mayor. (On what basis the minister made this decision is difficult to determine as the review hearing was held behind closed doors and copies of submissions received where never published) Exactly who supported the idea is unknown but what is clear is that the directly elected Lord Mayor is part of the problem and not the solution

The direct election of a popular Lord Mayor has failed to deliver good governance and the elected Council is worst off as a result. There are many arguments against the notion of a directly elected Lord Mayor which I will not go into here suffice to say that the Lord Mayor and chairman of the Council must maintain the confidence and support of the elected Council.

A directly elected Mayor is only held accountable once every four years where an appointed Mayor is held accountable daily by the elected Council.

“Mr Pitchford believes Local Government Minister Dick Wynne should review the City of Melbourne Act after next year’s council elections, to evaluate whether the system of a popularly elected lord mayor has worked.”


What was interesting in then Pitchford swan song was his request for the current Local Government Minister Dick Wynn (Former City of Melbourne Lord Mayor) for the Minister to review the direct election model.

The question should be why wait until the newly elected council is elected. Surely any review should be made prior to the 2008 election?

The City of Melbourne is due for a representation review but sadly the City is excluded from the process of review as applies to all other Municipalities in Victoria.

The State Government should undertake a comprehensive review of the City of Melbourne
(Including its external boundaries) early in the new year. Only then will we begin to address the real structural flaws that exist in the management of the City Council.

With the Federal Election soon out of the way NOW is the time to put the review in place and act before the November 2008 Municipal elections.

CEO pitches a curve ball on the eve of his departure

David Pitchford, Melbourne’s soon to depart CEO in an interview reported in the Age Newspaper has made some rather interesting comments. The statements raise more questions and could possible give some insight into why he did not make the grad.

Pitchford had overseen the expansion of the City Council at an unprecedented rate. His out of control unfettered “design me a job” benefits he offered his senior team had left the City facing near bankruptcy. It was not until the Council called in a team of experts management consultants (At an addition cost to the CEO’s $350,000 per year plus benefits remuneration) that the Council began to face reality.

Melbourne has only had three really good Ceos in recent memory. John Young, Elizabeth Proust and Andy Friend. Each person had a different approach and style to governance.

The Council went down hill fast following the appointment of Micheal Malouf (Who most people have forgotten already). It was under Malouf that governance standards declined dramatically and corruption began to set in. The Council no longer maintained a “non-political” professional management. Malouf’s contribution aided and abetted by Alison Lyons lead to the dismissal of the elected City Council who was held out as the escape goat for poor governance whilst Maklouf and the administration escaped blame or accountability. Sure there were just reasons to dismiss the City Council at the time but the situation was made worst by a CEO who was out of his depth.

Part of the solution introduced by the then Minister (He did not last long) Bob Cameron was the introduction of a directly elected Lord Mayor. (On what basis the minister made this decision is difficult to determine as the review hearing was held behind closed doors and copies of submissions received where never published) Exactly who supported the idea is unknown but what is clear is that the directly elected Lord Mayor is part of the problem and not the solution

The direct election of a popular Lord Mayor has failed to deliver good governance and the elected Council is worst off as a result. There are many arguments against the notion of a directly elected Lord Mayor which I will not go into here suffice to say that the Lord Mayor and chairman of the Council must maintain the confidence and support of the elected Council.

A directly elected Mayor is only held accountable once every four years where an appointed Mayor is held accountable daily by the elected Council.

“Mr Pitchford believes Local Government Minister Dick Wynne should review the City of Melbourne Act after next year’s council elections, to evaluate whether the system of a popularly elected lord mayor has worked.”


What was interesting in then Pitchford swan song was his request for the current Local Government Minister Dick Wynn (Former City of Melbourne Lord Mayor) for the Minister to review the direct election model.

The question should be why wait until the newly elected council is elected. Surely any review should be made prior to the 2008 election?

The City of Melbourne is due for a representation review but sadly the City is excluded from the process of review as applies to all other Municipalities in Victoria.

The State Government should undertake a comprehensive review of the City of Melbourne
(Including its external boundaries) early in the new year. Only then will we begin to address the real structural flaws that exist in the management of the City Council.

With the Federal Election soon out of the way NOW is the time to put the review in place and act before the November 2008 Municipal elections.

CEO pitches a curve ball on the eve of his departure

David Pitchford, Melbourne’s soon to depart CEO in an interview reported in the Age Newspaper has made some rather interesting comments. The statements raise more questions and could possible give some insight into why he did not make the grad.

Pitchford had overseen the expansion of the City Council at an unprecedented rate. His out of control unfettered “design me a job” benefits he offered his senior team had left the City facing near bankruptcy. It was not until the Council called in a team of experts management consultants (At an addition cost to the CEO’s $350,000 per year plus benefits remuneration) that the Council began to face reality.

Melbourne has only had three really good Ceos in recent memory. John Young, Elizabeth Proust and Andy Friend. Each person had a different approach and style to governance.

The Council went down hill fast following the appointment of Micheal Malouf (Who most people have forgotten already). It was under Malouf that governance standards declined dramatically and corruption began to set in. The Council no longer maintained a “non-political” professional management. Malouf’s contribution aided and abetted by Alison Lyons lead to the dismissal of the elected City Council who was held out as the escape goat for poor governance whilst Maklouf and the administration escaped blame or accountability. Sure there were just reasons to dismiss the City Council at the time but the situation was made worst by a CEO who was out of his depth.

Part of the solution introduced by the then Minister (He did not last long) Bob Cameron was the introduction of a directly elected Lord Mayor. (On what basis the minister made this decision is difficult to determine as the review hearing was held behind closed doors and copies of submissions received where never published) Exactly who supported the idea is unknown but what is clear is that the directly elected Lord Mayor is part of the problem and not the solution

The direct election of a popular Lord Mayor has failed to deliver good governance and the elected Council is worst off as a result. There are many arguments against the notion of a directly elected Lord Mayor which I will not go into here suffice to say that the Lord Mayor and chairman of the Council must maintain the confidence and support of the elected Council.

A directly elected Mayor is only held accountable once every four years where an appointed Mayor is held accountable daily by the elected Council.

“Mr Pitchford believes Local Government Minister Dick Wynne should review the City of Melbourne Act after next year’s council elections, to evaluate whether the system of a popularly elected lord mayor has worked.”


What was interesting in then Pitchford swan song was his request for the current Local Government Minister Dick Wynn (Former City of Melbourne Lord Mayor) for the Minister to review the direct election model.

The question should be why wait until the newly elected council is elected. Surely any review should be made prior to the 2008 election?

The City of Melbourne is due for a representation review but sadly the City is excluded from the process of review as applies to all other Municipalities in Victoria.

The State Government should undertake a comprehensive review of the City of Melbourne
(Including its external boundaries) early in the new year. Only then will we begin to address the real structural flaws that exist in the management of the City Council.

With the Federal Election soon out of the way NOW is the time to put the review in place and act before the November 2008 Municipal elections.

The Secret Reviewfor Council’s Eyes only

Melbourne City Council, true to form, held its own internal review of its representative model, conveniently forgetting that it is the State Government that really makes all the decisions and that the only real issue under Council’s control is whether or not to have postal or attendance voting.

The City Council called for submission and looked like it was doing the right thing, but was it. The City of Melbourne did not published copies of the submissions it had received, in fact most of the discussion was once again held behind closed doors at the all illegal Councillor briefing sessions. The meeting they have when they are not having a meeting.

In reading the minutes of last nights Finance and Governance Committee meetings the City Committee has recommended that the City of Melbourne formally request the State Government to include the City of Melbourne in its Local Government representation review and that the review also consider issues related to external boundaries.

The motion was passed four to three with John So’s (Do nothing) team voting against the motion.

It would appear that John does not want a representation review (You never know what it might come up with) The best way to silence your critics is to not give them a voice or opportunity to be heard.

The State Government is the proper authority to undertake the review, independent form the Council itself. The Councill’s review was nothing but a joke and the administration’s failure to published the submissions it received is another example of the Council trying to keep issues under wraps. The City has wasted time and money in the process.

The referral motion to the State Government will now go to the full City Council meeting scheduled in two weeks time. Odds are that John So will veto the motion and deny ratepayers and residents the review that the State Government should have had in the first place.

It is understood that the responsible Minister, Dick Wynn, would like to see a review but will only do so on the initiative and invitation of the City Council.

Will So do the right thing and support the review motion so that a review can be undertaken before next years Municipal elections or will John So once again avoid the tough questions and deny Melbourne the right of an independent public review, representaion and boundaries included? And more imprortant why is teh council limiting teh review of External boundaroes to Kensigton? Does not carlton also deserve the right to be re-united as does South Yarra and other neighbouring inner-metropolitan neighbourhoods.

Below copy of Motion passed by the City Council’s Finance and Governance Committee.

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/opm/bc/CTEE/meetings/FGC_minutes_200709110630.pdf

The motion was put and carried with the Chair Cr Shanahan and Councillors Brindley, Clarke and Seddon voting
in favour of the motion and the Deputy Lord Mayor Gary Singer and Councillors Jeter and Wilson voting against
the motion.
The motion in its entirety reads:
1. That the Finance and Governance Committee recommend Council:
1.1. determine to undertake attendance voting for the 2008 Council Elections consistent
with state and commonwealth government practices (postal voting entitlements);
1.2. approach the State Government in relation to:
1.2.1. its published timetable for independent reviews of electoral structures of
Councils in Victoria currently excludes the City of Melbourne;
1.2.2. since the implementation of the City of Melbourne Act 2001, no review of the
structure of Council has been undertaken to ensure it meets the needs and
expectations of constituents of a dynamic and changing capital city;
1.2.3. the outcome community consultative processes instigated by Council on the
issues of electoral processes and local area representation;
1.3. write to the Minister for Local Government, in light of 1.2.1 to 1.2.3 above, to:
1.3.1. request that the City of Melbourne be included in the State Government’s
current review of all municipalities and provide advice in relation to
timeframe;
1.3.2. request that the State Government conduct an external review in line with the
Local Government Act 1989 and publicly declare results by March 2008;
1.3.3. request that the reassessment also include a review of the representative
model, inclusion of Docklands and external boundaries; and
1.3.4. inform on community feedback of City of Melbourne consultative processes.

The Secret Reviewfor Council’s Eyes only

Melbourne City Council, true to form, held its own internal review of its representative model, conveniently forgetting that it is the State Government that really makes all the decisions and that the only real issue under Council’s control is whether or not to have postal or attendance voting.

The City Council called for submission and looked like it was doing the right thing, but was it. The City of Melbourne did not published copies of the submissions it had received, in fact most of the discussion was once again held behind closed doors at the all illegal Councillor briefing sessions. The meeting they have when they are not having a meeting.

In reading the minutes of last nights Finance and Governance Committee meetings the City Committee has recommended that the City of Melbourne formally request the State Government to include the City of Melbourne in its Local Government representation review and that the review also consider issues related to external boundaries.

The motion was passed four to three with John So’s (Do nothing) team voting against the motion.

It would appear that John does not want a representation review (You never know what it might come up with) The best way to silence your critics is to not give them a voice or opportunity to be heard.

The State Government is the proper authority to undertake the review, independent form the Council itself. The Councill’s review was nothing but a joke and the administration’s failure to published the submissions it received is another example of the Council trying to keep issues under wraps. The City has wasted time and money in the process.

The referral motion to the State Government will now go to the full City Council meeting scheduled in two weeks time. Odds are that John So will veto the motion and deny ratepayers and residents the review that the State Government should have had in the first place.

It is understood that the responsible Minister, Dick Wynn, would like to see a review but will only do so on the initiative and invitation of the City Council.

Will So do the right thing and support the review motion so that a review can be undertaken before next years Municipal elections or will John So once again avoid the tough questions and deny Melbourne the right of an independent public review, representaion and boundaries included? And more imprortant why is teh council limiting teh review of External boundaroes to Kensigton? Does not carlton also deserve the right to be re-united as does South Yarra and other neighbouring inner-metropolitan neighbourhoods.

Below copy of Motion passed by the City Council’s Finance and Governance Committee.

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/opm/bc/CTEE/meetings/FGC_minutes_200709110630.pdf

The motion was put and carried with the Chair Cr Shanahan and Councillors Brindley, Clarke and Seddon voting
in favour of the motion and the Deputy Lord Mayor Gary Singer and Councillors Jeter and Wilson voting against
the motion.
The motion in its entirety reads:
1. That the Finance and Governance Committee recommend Council:
1.1. determine to undertake attendance voting for the 2008 Council Elections consistent
with state and commonwealth government practices (postal voting entitlements);
1.2. approach the State Government in relation to:
1.2.1. its published timetable for independent reviews of electoral structures of
Councils in Victoria currently excludes the City of Melbourne;
1.2.2. since the implementation of the City of Melbourne Act 2001, no review of the
structure of Council has been undertaken to ensure it meets the needs and
expectations of constituents of a dynamic and changing capital city;
1.2.3. the outcome community consultative processes instigated by Council on the
issues of electoral processes and local area representation;
1.3. write to the Minister for Local Government, in light of 1.2.1 to 1.2.3 above, to:
1.3.1. request that the City of Melbourne be included in the State Government’s
current review of all municipalities and provide advice in relation to
timeframe;
1.3.2. request that the State Government conduct an external review in line with the
Local Government Act 1989 and publicly declare results by March 2008;
1.3.3. request that the reassessment also include a review of the representative
model, inclusion of Docklands and external boundaries; and
1.3.4. inform on community feedback of City of Melbourne consultative processes.

The Secret Reviewfor Council’s Eyes only

Melbourne City Council, true to form, held its own internal review of its representative model, conveniently forgetting that it is the State Government that really makes all the decisions and that the only real issue under Council’s control is whether or not to have postal or attendance voting.

The City Council called for submission and looked like it was doing the right thing, but was it. The City of Melbourne did not published copies of the submissions it had received, in fact most of the discussion was once again held behind closed doors at the all illegal Councillor briefing sessions. The meeting they have when they are not having a meeting.

In reading the minutes of last nights Finance and Governance Committee meetings the City Committee has recommended that the City of Melbourne formally request the State Government to include the City of Melbourne in its Local Government representation review and that the review also consider issues related to external boundaries.

The motion was passed four to three with John So’s (Do nothing) team voting against the motion.

It would appear that John does not want a representation review (You never know what it might come up with) The best way to silence your critics is to not give them a voice or opportunity to be heard.

The State Government is the proper authority to undertake the review, independent form the Council itself. The Councill’s review was nothing but a joke and the administration’s failure to published the submissions it received is another example of the Council trying to keep issues under wraps. The City has wasted time and money in the process.

The referral motion to the State Government will now go to the full City Council meeting scheduled in two weeks time. Odds are that John So will veto the motion and deny ratepayers and residents the review that the State Government should have had in the first place.

It is understood that the responsible Minister, Dick Wynn, would like to see a review but will only do so on the initiative and invitation of the City Council.

Will So do the right thing and support the review motion so that a review can be undertaken before next years Municipal elections or will John So once again avoid the tough questions and deny Melbourne the right of an independent public review, representaion and boundaries included? And more imprortant why is teh council limiting teh review of External boundaroes to Kensigton? Does not carlton also deserve the right to be re-united as does South Yarra and other neighbouring inner-metropolitan neighbourhoods.

Below copy of Motion passed by the City Council’s Finance and Governance Committee.

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/opm/bc/CTEE/meetings/FGC_minutes_200709110630.pdf

The motion was put and carried with the Chair Cr Shanahan and Councillors Brindley, Clarke and Seddon voting
in favour of the motion and the Deputy Lord Mayor Gary Singer and Councillors Jeter and Wilson voting against
the motion.
The motion in its entirety reads:
1. That the Finance and Governance Committee recommend Council:
1.1. determine to undertake attendance voting for the 2008 Council Elections consistent
with state and commonwealth government practices (postal voting entitlements);
1.2. approach the State Government in relation to:
1.2.1. its published timetable for independent reviews of electoral structures of
Councils in Victoria currently excludes the City of Melbourne;
1.2.2. since the implementation of the City of Melbourne Act 2001, no review of the
structure of Council has been undertaken to ensure it meets the needs and
expectations of constituents of a dynamic and changing capital city;
1.2.3. the outcome community consultative processes instigated by Council on the
issues of electoral processes and local area representation;
1.3. write to the Minister for Local Government, in light of 1.2.1 to 1.2.3 above, to:
1.3.1. request that the City of Melbourne be included in the State Government’s
current review of all municipalities and provide advice in relation to
timeframe;
1.3.2. request that the State Government conduct an external review in line with the
Local Government Act 1989 and publicly declare results by March 2008;
1.3.3. request that the reassessment also include a review of the representative
model, inclusion of Docklands and external boundaries; and
1.3.4. inform on community feedback of City of Melbourne consultative processes.