Melbourne Bound: New Federal Electorates

The Australian Electoral Commission has just released its proposed boundary changes for Federal Electorates in Victoria

Melbourne City Council remains covered by two Federal electorates. (Melbourne and Melbourne Ports).

The Inner City Boundaries are worth noting. The concept of Greater Melbourne is highlighted and demonstrates that the City of Melbourne would be best if it was exanded to reflect the proposed new boundaries for Melbourne and Melbourne Ports combined.

The various players will be watching very closely the demographic mix and voting patterns of the new Docklanders who will be voting for the first time on August 21.

Melbourne Ports has jumped the Yarra and taken in Docklands and has also lost a part of Caulfield. The Jewish sector in Melbourne Ports has significantly been reduced, which means that incumbent Federal Member Michael Danby may very well be looking at his last term of office and most likley be subject to a challenge in the lead up to the 2013 Federal election.

Cath Bowtell, if she can win the seat of Melbourne for the ALP, will be in a stronger position come 2013 as many expect the new city ‘Docklands’ precinct to not favour traditional Labor support. Trendy urban dwellers living in the new high rise developments are expected to potentially and naively favour the Greens or Liberal Party.

Adding to the ALP mix is that the former City of Prahran, with its injection of Public housing stock and the Windsor Estate is expected to off-set any downside of the Dockland precinct moving into Melbourne Ports but this is no comfort to Micheal Danby who has little support in Prahran.

Melbourne Bound: New Federal Electorates

The Australian Electoral Commission has just released its proposed boundary changes for Federal Electorates in Victoria

Melbourne City Council remains covered by two Federal electorates. (Melbourne and Melbourne Ports).

The Inner City Boundaries are worth noting. The concept of Greater Melbourne is highlighted and demonstrates that the City of Melbourne would be best if it was exanded to reflect the proposed new boundaries for Melbourne and Melbourne Ports combined.

The various players will be watching very closely the demographic mix and voting patterns of the new Docklanders who will be voting for the first time on August 21.

Melbourne Ports has jumped the Yarra and taken in Docklands and has also lost a part of Caulfield. The Jewish sector in Melbourne Ports has significantly been reduced, which means that incumbent Federal Member Michael Danby may very well be looking at his last term of office and most likley be subject to a challenge in the lead up to the 2013 Federal election.

Cath Bowtell, if she can win the seat of Melbourne for the ALP, will be in a stronger position come 2013 as many expect the new city ‘Docklands’ precinct to not favour traditional Labor support. Trendy urban dwellers living in the new high rise developments are expected to potentially and naively favour the Greens or Liberal Party.

Adding to the ALP mix is that the former City of Prahran, with its injection of Public housing stock and the Windsor Estate is expected to off-set any downside of the Dockland precinct moving into Melbourne Ports but this is no comfort to Micheal Danby who has little support in Prahran.

Jon Faine lets Doyle Off the Hook

ABC Radio talk jock Jon Faine interviewed Lord Mayor Robert Doyle on Monday morning and invited talk back calls to discuss Doyle’s election campaigning on a “Bigger Melbourne”. Doyle was there spruiking the need for more development in Melbourne.

What Faine failed to address was the issue of a Greater Melbourne and the need for the City Council boundaries to be expanded. Nor did he take talk back calls as he promised. Confusion arises when Doyle and other public figures talk about Melbourne. Robert Doyle was not elected to represent the interests of the broader Melbourne community, he only represents 50-60,000 inner city resident’s and businesses.

The Government and the City Council must embrace a Greater Melbourne model along the lines of Brisbane and the Greater City of London, taking in the boundaries of the state seats of Albert Park, Prahran, Richmond and Melbourne, all of which has a common community of interest of inner city development as advocated by the Lord Mayor. If we are going to plan for the future then it must be on a regional basis.

Issues of regional planing and governance, scale of efficiency and sustainability – all demand a Greater Melbourne spanning from the Banks of the Yarra Up through Prahran including St Kilda and the Bayside back to the Yarra and along the Maribyrnong River to Flemington, Kensington, North Melbourne Parkville, reuniting North and South Carlton , across to Clifton Hill and then along the Yarra Park heading back to Herring Island.

Melbourne City Council is one of the richest and smallest municipalities in Victoria. It was cut down to size by the previous Liberal Kennett Government, which Robert Doyle as the Member for Malvern was very much a part of.

Jon Faine should have raised the Greater Melbourne issue with Robert Doyle and asked him what his policies are on the expansion of Melbourne City Councils boundaries. Instead of taking talk back calls questioning Robert Doyle’s statement of Faine, who is a self confessed thief in his youth, went on to vilify Students of Xavier College who were caught out shop lifting whilst on a Ski Trip in New Zealand – falling short of naming the students involved. Whilst this issue may have warrants listing in the newspapers it did not warrant public discussion on talk back radio. Somehow listeners were left with the feeling that Jon Faine was harbouring a vendetta and restfulness towards Melbourne’s private schools. Jon Faine as a past lawyer and civil advocate should have known better then to have exposed this issue to undue public attention.

Faine was also quick to comment that the Federal Elections campaign was off to a slow start even though it does not officially state until later today when the writs are issued. Like many in the media they seam to think that their Job in the federal election is to cover it with ridicule and scorn.

I first met Jon Faine back in 1979/80 when he defended a group of squatters in Toorak and again when he worked for the Fitzroy Legal Service. Jon was a champion for civil liberties and a reformer.

Faine of late has lost the plot, he really should be looking at finding a new gig, having been in his current position for over 17 years. He sounds more like the weather man and traffic reporter repeating the same news that is already published in the media. He sounds borded and has become part of the system, another worn-out cog in the machine that he once wanted to reform. After a while it becomes easier to go though the motions following the same road map as the day before and performing the same duties as every other talk-back presenter. He is not the Jon Faine I first met and who I was inspired by in my youth. I prefer the reformer and civil activist that he once was.

Faine should get out and discover more of the world, head up a civil rights reform organisation or something other than just undertaking a three month long service leave, RACV diving tour from Australia to France.

Jon Faine lets Doyle Off the Hook

ABC Radio talk jock Jon Faine interviewed Lord Mayor Robert Doyle on Monday morning and invited talk back calls to discuss Doyle’s election campaigning on a “Bigger Melbourne”. Doyle was there spruiking the need for more development in Melbourne.

What Faine failed to address was the issue of a Greater Melbourne and the need for the City Council boundaries to be expanded. Nor did he take talk back calls as he promised. Confusion arises when Doyle and other public figures talk about Melbourne. Robert Doyle was not elected to represent the interests of the broader Melbourne community, he only represents 50-60,000 inner city resident’s and businesses.

The Government and the City Council must embrace a Greater Melbourne model along the lines of Brisbane and the Greater City of London, taking in the boundaries of the state seats of Albert Park, Prahran, Richmond and Melbourne, all of which has a common community of interest of inner city development as advocated by the Lord Mayor. If we are going to plan for the future then it must be on a regional basis.

Issues of regional planing and governance, scale of efficiency and sustainability – all demand a Greater Melbourne spanning from the Banks of the Yarra Up through Prahran including St Kilda and the Bayside back to the Yarra and along the Maribyrnong River to Flemington, Kensington, North Melbourne Parkville, reuniting North and South Carlton , across to Clifton Hill and then along the Yarra Park heading back to Herring Island.

Melbourne City Council is one of the richest and smallest municipalities in Victoria. It was cut down to size by the previous Liberal Kennett Government, which Robert Doyle as the Member for Malvern was very much a part of.

Jon Faine should have raised the Greater Melbourne issue with Robert Doyle and asked him what his policies are on the expansion of Melbourne City Councils boundaries. Instead of taking talk back calls questioning Robert Doyle’s statement of Faine, who is a self confessed thief in his youth, went on to vilify Students of Xavier College who were caught out shop lifting whilst on a Ski Trip in New Zealand – falling short of naming the students involved. Whilst this issue may have warrants listing in the newspapers it did not warrant public discussion on talk back radio. Somehow listeners were left with the feeling that Jon Faine was harbouring a vendetta and restfulness towards Melbourne’s private schools. Jon Faine as a past lawyer and civil advocate should have known better then to have exposed this issue to undue public attention.

Faine was also quick to comment that the Federal Elections campaign was off to a slow start even though it does not officially state until later today when the writs are issued. Like many in the media they seam to think that their Job in the federal election is to cover it with ridicule and scorn.

I first met Jon Faine back in 1979/80 when he defended a group of squatters in Toorak and again when he worked for the Fitzroy Legal Service. Jon was a champion for civil liberties and a reformer.

Faine of late has lost the plot, he really should be looking at finding a new gig, having been in his current position for over 17 years. He sounds more like the weather man and traffic reporter repeating the same news that is already published in the media. He sounds borded and has become part of the system, another worn-out cog in the machine that he once wanted to reform. After a while it becomes easier to go though the motions following the same road map as the day before and performing the same duties as every other talk-back presenter. He is not the Jon Faine I first met and who I was inspired by in my youth. I prefer the reformer and civil activist that he once was.

Faine should get out and discover more of the world, head up a civil rights reform organisation or something other than just undertaking a three month long service leave, RACV diving tour from Australia to France.

Jon Faine lets Doyle Off the Hook

ABC Radio talk jock Jon Faine interviewed Lord Mayor Robert Doyle on Monday morning and invited talk back calls to discuss Doyle’s election campaigning on a “Bigger Melbourne”. Doyle was there spruiking the need for more development in Melbourne.

What Faine failed to address was the issue of a Greater Melbourne and the need for the City Council boundaries to be expanded. Nor did he take talk back calls as he promised. Confusion arises when Doyle and other public figures talk about Melbourne. Robert Doyle was not elected to represent the interests of the broader Melbourne community, he only represents 50-60,000 inner city resident’s and businesses.

The Government and the City Council must embrace a Greater Melbourne model along the lines of Brisbane and the Greater City of London, taking in the boundaries of the state seats of Albert Park, Prahran, Richmond and Melbourne, all of which has a common community of interest of inner city development as advocated by the Lord Mayor. If we are going to plan for the future then it must be on a regional basis.

Issues of regional planing and governance, scale of efficiency and sustainability – all demand a Greater Melbourne spanning from the Banks of the Yarra Up through Prahran including St Kilda and the Bayside back to the Yarra and along the Maribyrnong River to Flemington, Kensington, North Melbourne Parkville, reuniting North and South Carlton , across to Clifton Hill and then along the Yarra Park heading back to Herring Island.

Melbourne City Council is one of the richest and smallest municipalities in Victoria. It was cut down to size by the previous Liberal Kennett Government, which Robert Doyle as the Member for Malvern was very much a part of.

Jon Faine should have raised the Greater Melbourne issue with Robert Doyle and asked him what his policies are on the expansion of Melbourne City Councils boundaries. Instead of taking talk back calls questioning Robert Doyle’s statement of Faine, who is a self confessed thief in his youth, went on to vilify Students of Xavier College who were caught out shop lifting whilst on a Ski Trip in New Zealand – falling short of naming the students involved. Whilst this issue may have warrants listing in the newspapers it did not warrant public discussion on talk back radio. Somehow listeners were left with the feeling that Jon Faine was harbouring a vendetta and restfulness towards Melbourne’s private schools. Jon Faine as a past lawyer and civil advocate should have known better then to have exposed this issue to undue public attention.

Faine was also quick to comment that the Federal Elections campaign was off to a slow start even though it does not officially state until later today when the writs are issued. Like many in the media they seam to think that their Job in the federal election is to cover it with ridicule and scorn.

I first met Jon Faine back in 1979/80 when he defended a group of squatters in Toorak and again when he worked for the Fitzroy Legal Service. Jon was a champion for civil liberties and a reformer.

Faine of late has lost the plot, he really should be looking at finding a new gig, having been in his current position for over 17 years. He sounds more like the weather man and traffic reporter repeating the same news that is already published in the media. He sounds borded and has become part of the system, another worn-out cog in the machine that he once wanted to reform. After a while it becomes easier to go though the motions following the same road map as the day before and performing the same duties as every other talk-back presenter. He is not the Jon Faine I first met and who I was inspired by in my youth. I prefer the reformer and civil activist that he once was.

Faine should get out and discover more of the world, head up a civil rights reform organisation or something other than just undertaking a three month long service leave, RACV diving tour from Australia to France.

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”.