Council Resolution proposed to be rescinded:
a. Council receives and notes this report as a report on the outcome of the section 223 consultation process (as required by that section)
b. Council approve and adopt the draft Meeting Procedure Local Law 2009 with the changes recommended in 'Summary of Submissions' table attached (attachment 1).
Date of resolution: 18/06/2009
Motion: That the above resolution adopted by the Council be rescinded and that the following motion be put to the Council in substitution.
Mover: Geraldine Brooks
Signed: .... Date:....
Substitute/ Alternative Motion (Meeting Procedure Local Law)
a.That Council receives and notes this report as a report on the outcome of the section 223 consultation process (as required by that section).
b.That Council approve and adopt the draft Meeting Procedure Local Law 2009 with the changes recommended in the “Summary of Submissions” table attached (Attachment 1), except and subject to the following:
1.That a recision motion not require seconding to be lodged
2.That a notice of motion not require seconding to be lodged
3.That motions and amendments without a seconder be recorded in the minutes.
Speaking notes - addressing the chamber
28th July 2009
I have lodged this rescission motion, because I believe these changes are grossly undemocratic.
And I am hopeful that at least some councillors tonight show enough respect for democracy and the community that elected me and agree to throw out this undemocratic move
With the whole of Victoria watching Brimbank and the conduct of Brimbank Councillors, we need to demonstrate tonight that we are a democratic Council making transparent and accountable decisions.
Motions may fail in the chamber but at least Councillors should have the right to raise the issues and debate them. Under this law that will be so much harder.
No other Council I am aware of has a local law that requires a notice of motion to be seconded on lodgment. “The sole motivation for this amendment must be to prevent the minority voice from being heard at Brimbank and I have to ask why would you want to do that…who is trying to gag me?
The minority I might be, but what I have to say is no less important and the truth often rests with the minority
I believe this move is an obvious attempt to stifle independent opinions and silence debate ..as the only non Labor councillor, it is clear that this is aimed at preventing me from moving any motions and raising issues in the community interest”.
Councillors are meant to act in the community interest. Unfortunately it seems that some other councillors are more interested in silencing community issues. Have you not learnt anything from the Ombudsmans report?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
National Container Deposit Scheme
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on July 28th 2009
Subject: National Container Deposit Scheme
Motion
That Council supports a National Container Deposit Scheme
That Council write to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts and Minister for Climate Change and Water, Peter Garret and the Victorian Minister for the Environment, Gavin Jennings advising them of this.
Background
Australia needs a national container deposit scheme for recycling the 10 billion drinks containers we throw away each year and a 10 cent refundable deposit on bottles, cans and cartons, will help us recycle much of this waste and meet our recycling targets.
A National CDS will create 2,600 new green jobs, while boosting Government funds by up to $90 million through recycling 740,000 tonnes of waste. The recent Environment Protection and Heritage Council report predicts a $75 million benefit to local councils from container deposits nationally.
Some of the key benefits of the scheme include:
- Savings to rate payers of over $59.8 million a year
- Raising up to $90 million in government revenue
- Creating hundreds of green jobs
- Decreasing litter by 12-15%
- Increasing recycling of drink containers from 50% to 80%
- Diverting more than 740,000 tonnes from landfill
- Reducing national greenhouse gas emissions by more than 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 each year
- the equivalent of switching 197,000 homes to renewable energy
- Improving air quality to the equivalent of taking 140,000 cars off the roads
Other countries have shown how effective container deposit schemes can be in creating jobs, reducing litter, saving water and achieving behaviour change. Valuable lessons have also been learned from the South Australian scheme, which has been in operation since 1977 and works in conjunction with kerbside schemes.
South Australia has achieved a recovery rate of over 80% of containers, with 1.5 tonnes per person recycled per year. Some South Australian councils have reported incomes of up to $90,000 per year from the scheme, and community organisations that operate collection depots fund their numerous activities, with the Scouts earning approximately $9 million per year from recycling containers. This year, the South Australian environment minister was able to announce on Clean Up Australia Day an increase of 19 million containers returned in three months, compared to the same three months the previous year.
The Victorian Government’s land fill levy dilemma could be solved by introducing container deposit legislation. The scheme would mean that we would not have to bury hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recyclable material in the ground each year, potentially polluting our waterways, and it will also save ratepayers millions of dollars each year from landfill levies.
Other jurisdictions have also recognised the merit of a container deposit scheme. The labour government in Northern Territory has recently announced it will introduce a scheme, while a private members bill is proceeding in NSW, and almost all the community sector and industry have indicated that a national scheme will provide significant efficiency gains over individual state schemes and provide uniform market conditions across the country.
Speaking notes - addressing the chamber
28 July 2009
Australia needs a national container deposit scheme. We need to support a national container deposit scheme to help us recycle much more of the waste that we are creating.
In April I proposed a motion for council to support a Victorian scheme. I got no support. To date something like 14 councils across Victoria have now shown support for such a scheme and that support is growing. Are we going to be left behind again, waiting for others to show leadership in addressing these issues, while we sit back and wait while the earth is destroyed or can we show some courage and vision and tell the other levels of government that this is something we want …NOW
Australians have consumed over 11 billion containers in the last year - 3.8 billion glass bottles, 69 million steel cans, 3.2 billion aluminium cans, 2.6 billion polyethylene terephylene (PET) bottles, and 1.4 billion high density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles. Currently, 512,000 tonnes of containers winds up in landfill.
Other countries have shown how effective container deposit schemes can be in creating jobs, reducing litter, saving water and achieving behaviour change. Valuable lessons have also been learned from the South Australian scheme, which has been in operation since 1977 and works in conjunction with kerbside schemes.
South Australia has achieved a recovery rate of over 80% of containers, with 1.5 tonnes per person recycled per year. Some South Australian councils have reported incomes of up to $90,000 per year from the scheme, and community organisations that operate collection depots fund their numerous activities, with the Scouts earning approximately $9 million per year from recycling containers. This year, the South Australian environment minister was able to announce on Clean Up Australia Day an increase of 19 million containers returned in three months, compared to the same three months the previous year.
Other jurisdictions have also recognised the merit of a container deposit scheme. The labour government in Northern Territory has recently announced it will introduce a scheme - their Chief Minister said he was sick of waiting for a national scheme. He said "I'm taking the lead and hope that other states will follow". Now there has just been a private members bills in progress in Victoria and now in NSW. Almost all the community sector and industry have indicated that a national scheme will provide significant efficiency gains over individual state schemes and provide uniform market conditions across the country.
With this in mind, I believe that we need national leadership to provide some consistency and direction on waste and recycling. A ten cent deposit means that we attach a value to a drink container, so it isn't rubbish. And if someone does litter a 10 cent container, someone else will pick it up. This represents a radical change from how we view rubbish and recycling. A 10 cent deposit on bottles, cans and cartons turns people who litter into recyclers. It changes how they view the empty bottle in their hand. They are about to throw it out the car window, but they paid 10 cents for it. It is worth something, so it isn't rubbish. You wouldn't toss a silver coin onto the ground.
There are tangible economic, social and environmental benefits of the scheme. It will create a fund that will meet all of the government's costs in the scheme, with money left over to promote recycling. It will create hundreds of new jobs. It will save ratepayers over $44.8 million annually. Every single municipality will benefit financially. Litter in our park, beaches and roadsides will decrease by 12-15%, recycling of drink containers will increase from around 50% to over 80%, and over 512,000 tonnes of reusable materials will be diverted from landfill.
This container deposit scheme will reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, reduce water use and improve air quality. Recycling container deposits will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year - the equivalent of switching 135,000 homes to 100% renewable energy. The scheme will save enough water to permanently supply over 30,000 Australian homes. It will deliver the air quality improvements equivalent to taking 56,000 cars off the road.These aren't just figures pulled out of the air. They were calculated using government and industry sources.
The greatest boost in recycling from a container deposit system is that it creates away-from-home recycling. About half of our drink containers are used away from home, at cafes and food courts, at restaurants, in our public parks, at sports grounds, at the beach, and in offices. A container deposit system works in well with kerbside recycling. It decreases the volume of drink containers in the bin, but increases the value of those containers. This makes kerbside recycling more profitable.In California, container deposit systems financially underpin kerbside by US $50 million per year. In Canada, kerbside collection and container deposits work side by side.
The public recognise that a container deposit scheme will mean payment of an upfront deposit. A 2004 Newspoll indicated a very high willingness to pay: 96% were prepared to pay 5 cents, 89% were prepared to pay 10 cents, and 75% were prepared to pay 20 cents. According to a 2006 Newspoll, 94% of Victorians want a container deposit system. Even when people don't seek to redeem the deposit - they support it in principle. Most people who have attended community meetings organised by the Greens on container deposits want to donate their refund to charity.
It would appear that several very powerful packaging companies and drink companies do not want a container deposit scheme. While these are very powerful lobbies, who have been so powerful as to delay something sensible like this for a long time, they do not represent over 90% of the population.The packaging industry makes alarmist statements about the price hike on a slab of beer, yet beer drinkers also care about the environment and know they can get the deposit back, or they can donate it to the local footy club. For such a tiny up-front investment, the benefits are profound.
Across the country there is support for the concept of container deposits, and not only from environment groups, but from Probus clubs, the Scouts and many others. Local government also supports the idea of container deposit schemes and across party lines too. Everyone supports it, except packaging companies, and drink companies like Fosters, Schweppes and Coca Cola, and their highly paid lobbyists. Lets see if Brimbank can support it too!
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on July 28th 2009
Subject: National Container Deposit Scheme
Motion
That Council supports a National Container Deposit Scheme
That Council write to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts and Minister for Climate Change and Water, Peter Garret and the Victorian Minister for the Environment, Gavin Jennings advising them of this.
Background
Australia needs a national container deposit scheme for recycling the 10 billion drinks containers we throw away each year and a 10 cent refundable deposit on bottles, cans and cartons, will help us recycle much of this waste and meet our recycling targets.
A National CDS will create 2,600 new green jobs, while boosting Government funds by up to $90 million through recycling 740,000 tonnes of waste. The recent Environment Protection and Heritage Council report predicts a $75 million benefit to local councils from container deposits nationally.
Some of the key benefits of the scheme include:
- Savings to rate payers of over $59.8 million a year
- Raising up to $90 million in government revenue
- Creating hundreds of green jobs
- Decreasing litter by 12-15%
- Increasing recycling of drink containers from 50% to 80%
- Diverting more than 740,000 tonnes from landfill
- Reducing national greenhouse gas emissions by more than 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 each year
- the equivalent of switching 197,000 homes to renewable energy
- Improving air quality to the equivalent of taking 140,000 cars off the roads
Other countries have shown how effective container deposit schemes can be in creating jobs, reducing litter, saving water and achieving behaviour change. Valuable lessons have also been learned from the South Australian scheme, which has been in operation since 1977 and works in conjunction with kerbside schemes.
South Australia has achieved a recovery rate of over 80% of containers, with 1.5 tonnes per person recycled per year. Some South Australian councils have reported incomes of up to $90,000 per year from the scheme, and community organisations that operate collection depots fund their numerous activities, with the Scouts earning approximately $9 million per year from recycling containers. This year, the South Australian environment minister was able to announce on Clean Up Australia Day an increase of 19 million containers returned in three months, compared to the same three months the previous year.
The Victorian Government’s land fill levy dilemma could be solved by introducing container deposit legislation. The scheme would mean that we would not have to bury hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recyclable material in the ground each year, potentially polluting our waterways, and it will also save ratepayers millions of dollars each year from landfill levies.
Other jurisdictions have also recognised the merit of a container deposit scheme. The labour government in Northern Territory has recently announced it will introduce a scheme, while a private members bill is proceeding in NSW, and almost all the community sector and industry have indicated that a national scheme will provide significant efficiency gains over individual state schemes and provide uniform market conditions across the country.
Speaking notes - addressing the chamber
28 July 2009
Australia needs a national container deposit scheme. We need to support a national container deposit scheme to help us recycle much more of the waste that we are creating.
In April I proposed a motion for council to support a Victorian scheme. I got no support. To date something like 14 councils across Victoria have now shown support for such a scheme and that support is growing. Are we going to be left behind again, waiting for others to show leadership in addressing these issues, while we sit back and wait while the earth is destroyed or can we show some courage and vision and tell the other levels of government that this is something we want …NOW
Australians have consumed over 11 billion containers in the last year - 3.8 billion glass bottles, 69 million steel cans, 3.2 billion aluminium cans, 2.6 billion polyethylene terephylene (PET) bottles, and 1.4 billion high density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles. Currently, 512,000 tonnes of containers winds up in landfill.
Other countries have shown how effective container deposit schemes can be in creating jobs, reducing litter, saving water and achieving behaviour change. Valuable lessons have also been learned from the South Australian scheme, which has been in operation since 1977 and works in conjunction with kerbside schemes.
South Australia has achieved a recovery rate of over 80% of containers, with 1.5 tonnes per person recycled per year. Some South Australian councils have reported incomes of up to $90,000 per year from the scheme, and community organisations that operate collection depots fund their numerous activities, with the Scouts earning approximately $9 million per year from recycling containers. This year, the South Australian environment minister was able to announce on Clean Up Australia Day an increase of 19 million containers returned in three months, compared to the same three months the previous year.
Other jurisdictions have also recognised the merit of a container deposit scheme. The labour government in Northern Territory has recently announced it will introduce a scheme - their Chief Minister said he was sick of waiting for a national scheme. He said "I'm taking the lead and hope that other states will follow". Now there has just been a private members bills in progress in Victoria and now in NSW. Almost all the community sector and industry have indicated that a national scheme will provide significant efficiency gains over individual state schemes and provide uniform market conditions across the country.
With this in mind, I believe that we need national leadership to provide some consistency and direction on waste and recycling. A ten cent deposit means that we attach a value to a drink container, so it isn't rubbish. And if someone does litter a 10 cent container, someone else will pick it up. This represents a radical change from how we view rubbish and recycling. A 10 cent deposit on bottles, cans and cartons turns people who litter into recyclers. It changes how they view the empty bottle in their hand. They are about to throw it out the car window, but they paid 10 cents for it. It is worth something, so it isn't rubbish. You wouldn't toss a silver coin onto the ground.
There are tangible economic, social and environmental benefits of the scheme. It will create a fund that will meet all of the government's costs in the scheme, with money left over to promote recycling. It will create hundreds of new jobs. It will save ratepayers over $44.8 million annually. Every single municipality will benefit financially. Litter in our park, beaches and roadsides will decrease by 12-15%, recycling of drink containers will increase from around 50% to over 80%, and over 512,000 tonnes of reusable materials will be diverted from landfill.
This container deposit scheme will reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, reduce water use and improve air quality. Recycling container deposits will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year - the equivalent of switching 135,000 homes to 100% renewable energy. The scheme will save enough water to permanently supply over 30,000 Australian homes. It will deliver the air quality improvements equivalent to taking 56,000 cars off the road.These aren't just figures pulled out of the air. They were calculated using government and industry sources.
The greatest boost in recycling from a container deposit system is that it creates away-from-home recycling. About half of our drink containers are used away from home, at cafes and food courts, at restaurants, in our public parks, at sports grounds, at the beach, and in offices. A container deposit system works in well with kerbside recycling. It decreases the volume of drink containers in the bin, but increases the value of those containers. This makes kerbside recycling more profitable.In California, container deposit systems financially underpin kerbside by US $50 million per year. In Canada, kerbside collection and container deposits work side by side.
The public recognise that a container deposit scheme will mean payment of an upfront deposit. A 2004 Newspoll indicated a very high willingness to pay: 96% were prepared to pay 5 cents, 89% were prepared to pay 10 cents, and 75% were prepared to pay 20 cents. According to a 2006 Newspoll, 94% of Victorians want a container deposit system. Even when people don't seek to redeem the deposit - they support it in principle. Most people who have attended community meetings organised by the Greens on container deposits want to donate their refund to charity.
It would appear that several very powerful packaging companies and drink companies do not want a container deposit scheme. While these are very powerful lobbies, who have been so powerful as to delay something sensible like this for a long time, they do not represent over 90% of the population.The packaging industry makes alarmist statements about the price hike on a slab of beer, yet beer drinkers also care about the environment and know they can get the deposit back, or they can donate it to the local footy club. For such a tiny up-front investment, the benefits are profound.
Across the country there is support for the concept of container deposits, and not only from environment groups, but from Probus clubs, the Scouts and many others. Local government also supports the idea of container deposit schemes and across party lines too. Everyone supports it, except packaging companies, and drink companies like Fosters, Schweppes and Coca Cola, and their highly paid lobbyists. Lets see if Brimbank can support it too!
Metropolitan Transport Forum
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on July 28th 2009
Subject: Metropolitan Transport Forum
Motion
That Council:
a) Moves to become a member of the Metropolitan Transport Forum (completing and lodging the form at Attachment A);
b) Nominate Councillor and officer delegates to participate in MTF events and meetings on behalf of Council;
c) Writes to the Metropolitan Transport Forum (MTF) to request a meeting with western region MTF members from the Cities of Hobsons Bay, Hume, Maribyrnong, Moonee Valley, MTF Chair and/or MTF Deputy Chair of the MTF to discuss regional transport issues and initiate its membership into the Forum within a month of becoming a member;
d) Requests officers present a number of key transport issues and challenges currently faced by communities in Brimbank to be taken to the MTF
Background/Rationale
The Metropolitan Transport Forum (MTF) is a local government interest group for transport in metropolitan Melbourne. The MTF provides a forum for debate, research and policy development for effective, efficient and equitable transport that will complement Council’s membership of the Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action (WAGA) and Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).
The MTF has been established for 18 years and currently membership is constituted of eighteen metropolitan councils. There are also twenty associate members from across the transport sector.
The MTF meets monthly to discuss transport topics of current interest and also distributes information across the sector, hosts events of topical interest, makes submissions to government and conducts research to better inform policy. The MTF have published a number of documents which have made a substantial contribution to transport policy and practice in Melbourne.
In addition the MTF fosters relationships with state government agencies to better represent local governments’ viewpoint, establish partnerships and improve project delivery.
From time to time the MTF may advocate to state or federal government on behalf of its member local governments. In such cases the views presented are independent of the views of the associate members. Given that the Brimbank community has consistently expressed concerns and issues relating to transport planning, Council’s capacity to advocate on such matters would be improved immediately.
There is an annual subscription of $1,500 for members. Each member nominates both a councillor and officer delegate.
Membership: Cities of Banyule, Boroondara, Casey, Darebin, Hobsons Bay, Hume, Kingston, Manningham, Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse, Whittlesea, Yarra and Shire of Nillumbik
Associate Members: Australian Institute of Urban Studies, ARRB Group , Booz Allen Hamilton, Bus Association of Victoria, Connex, Cycling Promotion Fund, Department of Transport, Driver Bus Lines, Environment Victoria, Flexicar, Louis Fouvy Consultant, J C Decaux Aust Pty Ltd, Metlink Melbourne, Municipal Association of Victoria, Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Public Transport Users Association, Transurban, VCOSS, Victorian Local Governance Association, Yarra Trams
Attachment A
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT FORUM
APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT FORUM INCORPORATED
This municipal council
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (name)
of …………..…………………………………………………………………………………………… (address)
agrees with the Statement of Purposes of the Metropolitan Transport Forum Inc. and
desires to become a member of the Metropolitan Transport Forum Inc.
In the event of this council’s admission as a member, it agrees to be bound by the rules of
the Association for the time being in force, including payment of an annual subscription fee.
Insert name and contact details of proposed authorised delegate (One Councillor and one officer of the Council may both be authorised delegates):
1. Name ……………………………………. Email: ……………………………………………..
Phone No:
2. Name …………………………………… Email: …………………………………………….
Phone No:
……………………………………………………………………………………………….. (Signature)
……………………………………………………………………………………………….. (Name)
on behalf of ……………………………………………………………………………… (Name of Council)
Date ……………………………………… 200…
Attachment B
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT FORUM
STATEMENT OF PURPOSES
The Metropolitan Transport Forum (MTF) aims to promote and work for sustainable, equitable and efficient transport options across metropolitan Melbourne.
In pursuit of this aim the MTF will:
· bring the perspective of local government into metropolitan transport planning debates;
· take a broad and systemic view of Melbourne’s transport needs within an urban and social planning context;
· advocate for ecologically sustainable transport that reflects climate change imperatives;
· advocate for socially equitable transport options and modes
· create a forum for debate, research and policy development, and for sharing ideas on local practices;
· support communication and exchange between member councils, organisations and other tiers of government, in pursuit of its purposes;
· work collaboratively with other organisations that support its purposes;
· develop collective positions on debates relating to its purposes;
· encourage and support sustainable transport and mobility planning across metropolitan Melbourne;
· do any such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects and the exercise of the powers of the Association.
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on July 28th 2009
Subject: Metropolitan Transport Forum
Motion
That Council:
a) Moves to become a member of the Metropolitan Transport Forum (completing and lodging the form at Attachment A);
b) Nominate Councillor and officer delegates to participate in MTF events and meetings on behalf of Council;
c) Writes to the Metropolitan Transport Forum (MTF) to request a meeting with western region MTF members from the Cities of Hobsons Bay, Hume, Maribyrnong, Moonee Valley, MTF Chair and/or MTF Deputy Chair of the MTF to discuss regional transport issues and initiate its membership into the Forum within a month of becoming a member;
d) Requests officers present a number of key transport issues and challenges currently faced by communities in Brimbank to be taken to the MTF
Background/Rationale
The Metropolitan Transport Forum (MTF) is a local government interest group for transport in metropolitan Melbourne. The MTF provides a forum for debate, research and policy development for effective, efficient and equitable transport that will complement Council’s membership of the Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action (WAGA) and Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).
The MTF has been established for 18 years and currently membership is constituted of eighteen metropolitan councils. There are also twenty associate members from across the transport sector.
The MTF meets monthly to discuss transport topics of current interest and also distributes information across the sector, hosts events of topical interest, makes submissions to government and conducts research to better inform policy. The MTF have published a number of documents which have made a substantial contribution to transport policy and practice in Melbourne.
In addition the MTF fosters relationships with state government agencies to better represent local governments’ viewpoint, establish partnerships and improve project delivery.
From time to time the MTF may advocate to state or federal government on behalf of its member local governments. In such cases the views presented are independent of the views of the associate members. Given that the Brimbank community has consistently expressed concerns and issues relating to transport planning, Council’s capacity to advocate on such matters would be improved immediately.
There is an annual subscription of $1,500 for members. Each member nominates both a councillor and officer delegate.
Membership: Cities of Banyule, Boroondara, Casey, Darebin, Hobsons Bay, Hume, Kingston, Manningham, Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse, Whittlesea, Yarra and Shire of Nillumbik
Associate Members: Australian Institute of Urban Studies, ARRB Group , Booz Allen Hamilton, Bus Association of Victoria, Connex, Cycling Promotion Fund, Department of Transport, Driver Bus Lines, Environment Victoria, Flexicar, Louis Fouvy Consultant, J C Decaux Aust Pty Ltd, Metlink Melbourne, Municipal Association of Victoria, Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Public Transport Users Association, Transurban, VCOSS, Victorian Local Governance Association, Yarra Trams
Attachment A
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT FORUM
APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT FORUM INCORPORATED
This municipal council
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (name)
of …………..…………………………………………………………………………………………… (address)
agrees with the Statement of Purposes of the Metropolitan Transport Forum Inc. and
desires to become a member of the Metropolitan Transport Forum Inc.
In the event of this council’s admission as a member, it agrees to be bound by the rules of
the Association for the time being in force, including payment of an annual subscription fee.
Insert name and contact details of proposed authorised delegate (One Councillor and one officer of the Council may both be authorised delegates):
1. Name ……………………………………. Email: ……………………………………………..
Phone No:
2. Name …………………………………… Email: …………………………………………….
Phone No:
……………………………………………………………………………………………….. (Signature)
……………………………………………………………………………………………….. (Name)
on behalf of ……………………………………………………………………………… (Name of Council)
Date ……………………………………… 200…
Attachment B
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT FORUM
STATEMENT OF PURPOSES
The Metropolitan Transport Forum (MTF) aims to promote and work for sustainable, equitable and efficient transport options across metropolitan Melbourne.
In pursuit of this aim the MTF will:
· bring the perspective of local government into metropolitan transport planning debates;
· take a broad and systemic view of Melbourne’s transport needs within an urban and social planning context;
· advocate for ecologically sustainable transport that reflects climate change imperatives;
· advocate for socially equitable transport options and modes
· create a forum for debate, research and policy development, and for sharing ideas on local practices;
· support communication and exchange between member councils, organisations and other tiers of government, in pursuit of its purposes;
· work collaboratively with other organisations that support its purposes;
· develop collective positions on debates relating to its purposes;
· encourage and support sustainable transport and mobility planning across metropolitan Melbourne;
· do any such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects and the exercise of the powers of the Association.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
UGB: Urban Growth Blunder
At the last Planning Committee Meeting on Tuesday 14th July, Council decided to make a submission to the State Government on its recently released report euphemistically called 'Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities'.
I'd like to see this Council take a position within its submission that it does not believe that the UGB expansion is needed nor warranted.
I spoke about this at the meeting.
Speaking Notes - addressing the chamber
The analysis and assessment of implications of these proposals are missing everywhere in the phone-book sized gloss - it's hard to know whether any other planning options were even considered.
The manner in which the State Government has facilitated public comment for these four proposals is also telling. It is strikingly similar to previous consultations on transport plans and UGB expansions that the State has received and then ignored - this is the greatest cause for concern. Why are they asking again and again as if it is not already very clear that the UGB needs to be permanently fixed, and public funds and energy be channelled to address our current problems.
We should have serious concerns about:
· the Aboriginal heritage impacts of the expansion of Melbourne's urban growth boundary, about to be pushed out by up to 46,000 hectares,
· The State Government considering taking over planning powers of these new "growth areas".
· What transport and living costs that these 'new' areas will be locked into, what of the environmental impact? No analysis has been forthcoming.
We should also be very concerned about:
· The relationship b/w the state government and developers following the announcement that, Planning Minister Madden hosted a lunch today to "brief" developers and business "on the vision for our growth areas and the need to fast track infrastructure investment to create jobs" - and to raise funds for the ALP. It seems that a privileged section of the community can buy the Minister's ear at the expense of other citizens. What deals have been done to rezone this land that we don’t know about?
Expansion of the UGB at any place weakens the entire boundary. And as a council poised to be a thoroughfare to the 'new growth areas' we must ask 'When will it end?'
The Infrastructure needs of these new developments have not been assessed against the existing underdeveloped infill areas or efforts to address the strain on the arrangement of our current transport systems.
Where are the plans for the hospitals and health services?
who will foot the bill for the recreational areas? firestations? police stations? ambulance services?
the schools? education and training facilities? arts and cultural facilities?
For a new council for the these areas? who will pay to set this up? Why should all of this necessary infrastructure be left for the community to pay for while the developers walk away with millions of dollars of profits?
The logic behind the assumptions that an increased population will necessitate more housing construction needs to be challenged.
No one disputes that our population is growing, but there is cause to question whether the size of this growth requires more housing construction.
Firstly, as a city west water researcher recently pointed out the government is not even using its own data for this analysis. It is using REIV data. While many owners of private houses have them up for rental, many sit unused and will not appear on real estate lists
Instead of using real estate institute data, it should use its own water consumption data to determine real house vacancy numbers
Secondly, If we are genuine about providing accommodation and not just generating housing development and profits for developers, we should also be doing An assessment of real housing availability in our community.
A thorough assessment of Housing availability should examine rental accommodation but it should also look at all potential spaces including retail office space that is currently unoccupied (and often close to facilities) and hotel vacancy rates which are currently running at somewhere like 70-80% or higher while we have people who are homeless and people who are on huge waiting lists for emergency accommodation.
If we really have a shortage then the only real solution is high quality attractive public housing and yet the intention here seems to be to build huge amounts of private housing which will force our newly arrived communities and vulnerable families beyond the reach of any decent services
We mustn't forget that we are putting people out there, families and households without any thought to their needs future and present.
What kind of metropolitan Melbourne will mutate from this reckless set of policies?
Food security, water security and peak oil will converge to make many people's lifestyles unbearable if we don't plan ahead for the kind of city we're creating.
Professor Laurie Sparke, a leading Australian automotive engineering expert, has just last week warned of an energy crunch that could make the 1970's oil crises seem small-time. He says that in coming years Australia may not be able to buy oil, at any price.
He says that recent research by McKinsey Global Institute predicts a new spike in the price of oil between 2010 and 2013, depending on the length of the current global economic downturn. As soon as the countries that use large amounts of oil -- China, Japan, India and the US -- recover, demand will exceed supply. There are already signs that China and Japan are starting to pick up, and the price of oil has already doubled in the first 6 months of this year. He expects trouble within the next FIVE YEARS.
We don't have time to fiddle around, and now is not the time to build more freeways or suburbs without infrastructure!
There is no case for construction beyond the current UGB.
There are all sorts of things we can do as a society to ensure housing for all our citizens and at a reasonable cost
Before we look at destroying the lungs of Melbourne, we should be looking at all these other options:
We should be abolishing negative gearing that enables the wealthy the buy up housing at a cost to tax payers. So effectively paying for housing that we do not own.
We should properly assess the actual availability of current housing stock using our own data
We should be increasing housing density (particularly of publicly owned housing that will be affordable) in attractive areas around public transport, but we should also make sure that this increased density, is supported by attractive and high quality facilities and services and with proper community consultation
My concern is that it is this Govt's intention to create profits for mates not affordable housing and it is going to leave us, in Brimbank, with disrupted and overstressed services and communities stranded beyond adequate public services.
LET'S DEAL WITH PROBLEMS WE HAVE NOW, WITHOUT CREATING NEW ONES WE CANNOT HOPE TO DEAL WITH IN OUR LIFETIMES
I'd like to see this Council take a position within its submission that it does not believe that the UGB expansion is needed nor warranted.
I spoke about this at the meeting.
Speaking Notes - addressing the chamber
The analysis and assessment of implications of these proposals are missing everywhere in the phone-book sized gloss - it's hard to know whether any other planning options were even considered.
The manner in which the State Government has facilitated public comment for these four proposals is also telling. It is strikingly similar to previous consultations on transport plans and UGB expansions that the State has received and then ignored - this is the greatest cause for concern. Why are they asking again and again as if it is not already very clear that the UGB needs to be permanently fixed, and public funds and energy be channelled to address our current problems.
We should have serious concerns about:
· the Aboriginal heritage impacts of the expansion of Melbourne's urban growth boundary, about to be pushed out by up to 46,000 hectares,
· The State Government considering taking over planning powers of these new "growth areas".
· What transport and living costs that these 'new' areas will be locked into, what of the environmental impact? No analysis has been forthcoming.
We should also be very concerned about:
· The relationship b/w the state government and developers following the announcement that, Planning Minister Madden hosted a lunch today to "brief" developers and business "on the vision for our growth areas and the need to fast track infrastructure investment to create jobs" - and to raise funds for the ALP. It seems that a privileged section of the community can buy the Minister's ear at the expense of other citizens. What deals have been done to rezone this land that we don’t know about?
Expansion of the UGB at any place weakens the entire boundary. And as a council poised to be a thoroughfare to the 'new growth areas' we must ask 'When will it end?'
The Infrastructure needs of these new developments have not been assessed against the existing underdeveloped infill areas or efforts to address the strain on the arrangement of our current transport systems.
Where are the plans for the hospitals and health services?
who will foot the bill for the recreational areas? firestations? police stations? ambulance services?
the schools? education and training facilities? arts and cultural facilities?
For a new council for the these areas? who will pay to set this up? Why should all of this necessary infrastructure be left for the community to pay for while the developers walk away with millions of dollars of profits?
The logic behind the assumptions that an increased population will necessitate more housing construction needs to be challenged.
No one disputes that our population is growing, but there is cause to question whether the size of this growth requires more housing construction.
Firstly, as a city west water researcher recently pointed out the government is not even using its own data for this analysis. It is using REIV data. While many owners of private houses have them up for rental, many sit unused and will not appear on real estate lists
Instead of using real estate institute data, it should use its own water consumption data to determine real house vacancy numbers
Secondly, If we are genuine about providing accommodation and not just generating housing development and profits for developers, we should also be doing An assessment of real housing availability in our community.
A thorough assessment of Housing availability should examine rental accommodation but it should also look at all potential spaces including retail office space that is currently unoccupied (and often close to facilities) and hotel vacancy rates which are currently running at somewhere like 70-80% or higher while we have people who are homeless and people who are on huge waiting lists for emergency accommodation.
If we really have a shortage then the only real solution is high quality attractive public housing and yet the intention here seems to be to build huge amounts of private housing which will force our newly arrived communities and vulnerable families beyond the reach of any decent services
We mustn't forget that we are putting people out there, families and households without any thought to their needs future and present.
What kind of metropolitan Melbourne will mutate from this reckless set of policies?
Food security, water security and peak oil will converge to make many people's lifestyles unbearable if we don't plan ahead for the kind of city we're creating.
Professor Laurie Sparke, a leading Australian automotive engineering expert, has just last week warned of an energy crunch that could make the 1970's oil crises seem small-time. He says that in coming years Australia may not be able to buy oil, at any price.
He says that recent research by McKinsey Global Institute predicts a new spike in the price of oil between 2010 and 2013, depending on the length of the current global economic downturn. As soon as the countries that use large amounts of oil -- China, Japan, India and the US -- recover, demand will exceed supply. There are already signs that China and Japan are starting to pick up, and the price of oil has already doubled in the first 6 months of this year. He expects trouble within the next FIVE YEARS.
We don't have time to fiddle around, and now is not the time to build more freeways or suburbs without infrastructure!
There is no case for construction beyond the current UGB.
There are all sorts of things we can do as a society to ensure housing for all our citizens and at a reasonable cost
Before we look at destroying the lungs of Melbourne, we should be looking at all these other options:
We should be abolishing negative gearing that enables the wealthy the buy up housing at a cost to tax payers. So effectively paying for housing that we do not own.
We should properly assess the actual availability of current housing stock using our own data
We should be increasing housing density (particularly of publicly owned housing that will be affordable) in attractive areas around public transport, but we should also make sure that this increased density, is supported by attractive and high quality facilities and services and with proper community consultation
My concern is that it is this Govt's intention to create profits for mates not affordable housing and it is going to leave us, in Brimbank, with disrupted and overstressed services and communities stranded beyond adequate public services.
LET'S DEAL WITH PROBLEMS WE HAVE NOW, WITHOUT CREATING NEW ONES WE CANNOT HOPE TO DEAL WITH IN OUR LIFETIMES
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Save Reconciliation Victoria
I put this motion to the chamber as an urgent motion because within days the Brumby Government was defunding Reconciliation Victoria, putting to a halt its good work on reconciliation matters. This puts Victoria out of step with other State Reconciliation bodies and raises questions about the Victorian Government's commitments to 'closing the gap' in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage and health outcomes.
$200,000 a year is meagre funds in the overall State budget for such important work as that performed by Reconciliation Victoria
Cr Marion Martin seconded this motion.
The urgency of the motion was lost on some councillors. Cr Margaret Guidice sought to defer the motion so that councillors could receive a briefing. Cr Sam David stated that he hoped to receive information on such urgent matters in advance. Cr Stuart Miller did not participate in the debate, but voted against the motion. Fortunately the motion got enough support to be carried.
See below from page 64 Minutes for Ordinary Council Meeting 23rd June 2009
http://www.brimbank.vic.gov.au/Files/278MIN_230609.pdf
Urgent Business
Procedural Motion
Moved Cr Brooks / Seconded Cr Martin
That an Item of Urgent Business be considered in relation to the defunding of
Reconciliation Victoria by Premier Brumby.
Motion
Moved Cr Brooks / Seconded Cr Martin
That Council write to Premier Brumby condemning the defunding of Reconciliation
Victoria
Amended Motion
Moved Cr Giudice
That Council write the Premier immediately and that Councillors receive a briefing or
briefing note from our General Manager on the impact this would have on Brimbank,
and what reasons the Brumby Government would have behind doing this.
Accepted by Mover Cr Brooks and Seconder Cr Martin and Carried.
For: Cr Martin, Cr Seitz, Cr Shamon, Cr Siu, Cr Bozinovski, Cr Brooks,
Cr David, Cr Giudice, Cr Kiselis, Mayor Cr Atanasovski
Against: Cr Miller
$200,000 a year is meagre funds in the overall State budget for such important work as that performed by Reconciliation Victoria
Cr Marion Martin seconded this motion.
The urgency of the motion was lost on some councillors. Cr Margaret Guidice sought to defer the motion so that councillors could receive a briefing. Cr Sam David stated that he hoped to receive information on such urgent matters in advance. Cr Stuart Miller did not participate in the debate, but voted against the motion. Fortunately the motion got enough support to be carried.
See below from page 64 Minutes for Ordinary Council Meeting 23rd June 2009
http://www.brimbank.vic.gov.au/Files/278MIN_230609.pdf
Urgent Business
Procedural Motion
Moved Cr Brooks / Seconded Cr Martin
That an Item of Urgent Business be considered in relation to the defunding of
Reconciliation Victoria by Premier Brumby.
Motion
Moved Cr Brooks / Seconded Cr Martin
That Council write to Premier Brumby condemning the defunding of Reconciliation
Victoria
Amended Motion
Moved Cr Giudice
That Council write the Premier immediately and that Councillors receive a briefing or
briefing note from our General Manager on the impact this would have on Brimbank,
and what reasons the Brumby Government would have behind doing this.
Accepted by Mover Cr Brooks and Seconder Cr Martin and Carried.
For: Cr Martin, Cr Seitz, Cr Shamon, Cr Siu, Cr Bozinovski, Cr Brooks,
Cr David, Cr Giudice, Cr Kiselis, Mayor Cr Atanasovski
Against: Cr Miller
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
TV Takeback Scheme
When I presented this motion to the chamber, it was amended to include all e-waste. The motion got up. E-waste is a very large problem in landfill for local councils. These products leak very toxic chemicals that are damaging to our health, the local environment and become expensive for ratepayers to clean up once the landfill site is decommissioned. Also, with the arrival of digital tv, the rate of disposal of these old pre-loved units needs to be well matched by efforts to recycle them.
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on April 28th 2009
Subject: TV Takeback Scheme
Motion
That Council resolves to:
Support the introduction of a national ‘TV Take Back’ scheme to ensure old televisions are recycled; and
Write to the Victorian Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Innovation, Gavin Jennings, and the Federal Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, calling for a decision at the May 2009 Meeting of the Environment Protection & Heritage Council to introduce a national ‘TV Take Back’ scheme; and
Sponsor a motion at the May 2009 Municipal Association of Victoria State Council in support of a national extended responsibility scheme on televisions.
Ask the Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action to prepare a letter of support, with all WAGA councils as signatories, supporting the ‘TV Take Back’ scheme on behalf of the western region
Background
Environment Victoria is asking Local Governments across Victoria to support the introduction of a ‘TV Take Back’ scheme in Australia.
As the digital age spreads to television, people are upgrading, and old TVs are appearing on nature strips all over Melbourne. The cleaning up of hard rubbish and illegal dumping, including discarded TVs is costly to Council.
There is no systematic recycling of televisions in Australia. All but a handful of old TVs are crushed to pieces and buried in landfill.
Putting TVs in landfill is dumb. We can, and should be recycling TVs to recover the energy and materials that goes into making them, and to stop toxins from leaching through landfill.
An estimated 1.9 million televisions entered Australia in the last 12 months. In total, there is an estimated 17 million televisions in landfill or on their way to landfill. Analogue transmission signals are timetabled to finish at the end of 2013 which is likely to further increase the turn over and disposal of televisions and related equipment.
Brimbank is already a leader
Brimbank and Whitehorse are the only Councils in Victoria that run a TV recycling programme.
The expansion of the Detox Your Home Facility to allow residents free disposal of E-Waste, which also includes all types of TVs, occurred in February 2009.
The recycling process has the TVs dismantled into parts (i.e. glass, plastic, lead & steel) and the materials are then sent off to recyclers that convert the material into other products.
Industry supports a TV recycling scheme
The Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI) said in a 2007 report that:
“The potential market for recycled materials from household e-waste in Australia is conservatively estimated at over $50 million per year, reaching $500 million per year for precious metal rich equipment such as mobiles.”
The E-Waste Solution
In the absence of regulation or legislation to ensure a level playing field, there is little incentive for socially responsible manufacturers to introduce their own recycling or take-back programs. For this reason, the major brand owners for televisions are actively pursuing environmentally-responsible regulation of their own industry in Australia.
Most of these brand owners have experience with the European Union’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, which has been in place since 2002. It places the responsibility for disposal of end of life products on manufactures and requires consumers of to be able to return WEEE “at least free of charge”.
The Customs Import Model (CIM) or an Advanced Recycling Scheme Fee (ARF) are both take back schemes that would provide comprehensive and fair coverage of television manufacturers in the Australian market. The CIM places a charge at the point of import whereas an ARF places the fee at the point of sale. Both schemes would also raise funds for recycling from the producers and consumers of products and would not require any taxpayer contribution.
Victoria is well-placed to benefit from the development of a national take back scheme for e-waste. Two of Australia’s leading e-waste recyclers have large operations located in Metropolitan Melbourne - SIMS Metal Management in Braeside, and MRI Australia in Campbellfield. Some of the world’s best e-waste recycling technology was also developed in Melbourne, at AUSMELT’s Dandenong facility.
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on April 28th 2009
Subject: TV Takeback Scheme
Motion
That Council resolves to:
Support the introduction of a national ‘TV Take Back’ scheme to ensure old televisions are recycled; and
Write to the Victorian Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Innovation, Gavin Jennings, and the Federal Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, calling for a decision at the May 2009 Meeting of the Environment Protection & Heritage Council to introduce a national ‘TV Take Back’ scheme; and
Sponsor a motion at the May 2009 Municipal Association of Victoria State Council in support of a national extended responsibility scheme on televisions.
Ask the Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action to prepare a letter of support, with all WAGA councils as signatories, supporting the ‘TV Take Back’ scheme on behalf of the western region
Background
Environment Victoria is asking Local Governments across Victoria to support the introduction of a ‘TV Take Back’ scheme in Australia.
As the digital age spreads to television, people are upgrading, and old TVs are appearing on nature strips all over Melbourne. The cleaning up of hard rubbish and illegal dumping, including discarded TVs is costly to Council.
There is no systematic recycling of televisions in Australia. All but a handful of old TVs are crushed to pieces and buried in landfill.
Putting TVs in landfill is dumb. We can, and should be recycling TVs to recover the energy and materials that goes into making them, and to stop toxins from leaching through landfill.
An estimated 1.9 million televisions entered Australia in the last 12 months. In total, there is an estimated 17 million televisions in landfill or on their way to landfill. Analogue transmission signals are timetabled to finish at the end of 2013 which is likely to further increase the turn over and disposal of televisions and related equipment.
Brimbank is already a leader
Brimbank and Whitehorse are the only Councils in Victoria that run a TV recycling programme.
The expansion of the Detox Your Home Facility to allow residents free disposal of E-Waste, which also includes all types of TVs, occurred in February 2009.
The recycling process has the TVs dismantled into parts (i.e. glass, plastic, lead & steel) and the materials are then sent off to recyclers that convert the material into other products.
Industry supports a TV recycling scheme
The Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI) said in a 2007 report that:
“The potential market for recycled materials from household e-waste in Australia is conservatively estimated at over $50 million per year, reaching $500 million per year for precious metal rich equipment such as mobiles.”
The E-Waste Solution
In the absence of regulation or legislation to ensure a level playing field, there is little incentive for socially responsible manufacturers to introduce their own recycling or take-back programs. For this reason, the major brand owners for televisions are actively pursuing environmentally-responsible regulation of their own industry in Australia.
Most of these brand owners have experience with the European Union’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, which has been in place since 2002. It places the responsibility for disposal of end of life products on manufactures and requires consumers of to be able to return WEEE “at least free of charge”.
The Customs Import Model (CIM) or an Advanced Recycling Scheme Fee (ARF) are both take back schemes that would provide comprehensive and fair coverage of television manufacturers in the Australian market. The CIM places a charge at the point of import whereas an ARF places the fee at the point of sale. Both schemes would also raise funds for recycling from the producers and consumers of products and would not require any taxpayer contribution.
Victoria is well-placed to benefit from the development of a national take back scheme for e-waste. Two of Australia’s leading e-waste recyclers have large operations located in Metropolitan Melbourne - SIMS Metal Management in Braeside, and MRI Australia in Campbellfield. Some of the world’s best e-waste recycling technology was also developed in Melbourne, at AUSMELT’s Dandenong facility.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Feed-in Tariff Scheme
Cr Heidi Seitz seconded this motion as she has recently purchased solar (electricity) photovoltaic system. This allowed some good discussion on the topic in the chamber, however the motion was not carried after all. A gross feed-in tariff would mean that households generating their own solar electricity would receive financial return from the state government for whatever they produce, rather than for what they produce but don't use (net feed-in tariff).
A gross feed-in tariff would help make solar PV much more attractive to more households, especially those on lower incomes. Such a gross tariff may also subsequently kick off our domestic renewables industry (as has happened in Germany and other European countries).
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on 24/2/09
Subject: Feed in Tariff Scheme
Motion
That Council
a) write to the Premier, John Brumby and the Minister for Energy, Peter Batchelor, expressing disappointment with the recently announced Feed in Tariff Scheme that will only provide financial return on excess energy fed into the grid, that such a scheme provides minimal and uncertain financial return and does little for the development of the solar industry in Victoria. Further to that Council supports a Feed in Tariff Scheme that is based on Gross Production Metering Systems, which has a mandated price over a guaranteed time period to provide certainty for investment and provides fair financial returns to solar panel owners and does not discriminate against families, the elderly and those at home during the daytime (home businesses) who consume electricity during the day.
b) Request the MAV as a matter of urgency to vigorously pursue the resolution passed by Victorian Councils at the MAV State Council meeting in May 2008 that 'The MAV call on the State govt to set the feed in tariff for small scale photovoltaic and wind generated electricity at 60c/kwh for the gross amount of electricity generated, rather than the net amount after deducting on-site usage
A gross feed-in tariff would help make solar PV much more attractive to more households, especially those on lower incomes. Such a gross tariff may also subsequently kick off our domestic renewables industry (as has happened in Germany and other European countries).
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on 24/2/09
Subject: Feed in Tariff Scheme
Motion
That Council
a) write to the Premier, John Brumby and the Minister for Energy, Peter Batchelor, expressing disappointment with the recently announced Feed in Tariff Scheme that will only provide financial return on excess energy fed into the grid, that such a scheme provides minimal and uncertain financial return and does little for the development of the solar industry in Victoria. Further to that Council supports a Feed in Tariff Scheme that is based on Gross Production Metering Systems, which has a mandated price over a guaranteed time period to provide certainty for investment and provides fair financial returns to solar panel owners and does not discriminate against families, the elderly and those at home during the daytime (home businesses) who consume electricity during the day.
b) Request the MAV as a matter of urgency to vigorously pursue the resolution passed by Victorian Councils at the MAV State Council meeting in May 2008 that 'The MAV call on the State govt to set the feed in tariff for small scale photovoltaic and wind generated electricity at 60c/kwh for the gross amount of electricity generated, rather than the net amount after deducting on-site usage
Development Assessment Committees (DACs)
This motion did not get seconded. Minister for Planning Justin Madden attempted to set up Development Assessment Committees to strip planning controls from councils, whilst wanting councils to pay for the running of these DACs. The State Government is continually saying how it wants to support local government. The DACs, however, reduces the opportunity for local communities to have a saying in what sort of development they want in the city they live in.
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on 24/2/09
Subject: Development Assessment Committees
Motion
That Council writes to Premier John Brumby and Minister for Planning Justin Madden, congratulating the State Government on dumping the DACs
Background
The State Government proposal to introduce legislation to establish Development Assessment Committees would have stripped local governments of planning powers and given planning authority to a body of unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable people behind closed doors.
Critical to this initiative to fast-track developments by establishing DACs, make non-government schools and social housing exempt from a planning permit and for the Minister to become the Responsible Authority for these projects is the abolition of appeal rights for residents and ratepayers –a denial of democracy in our local planning system.
While some of these actions may not directly affect our community right now, what it signals is a Government apparently intent on incrementally eroding democracy in the planning system, removing from the process the level of government which knows its local municipality and planning issues best.
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on 24/2/09
Subject: Development Assessment Committees
Motion
That Council writes to Premier John Brumby and Minister for Planning Justin Madden, congratulating the State Government on dumping the DACs
Background
The State Government proposal to introduce legislation to establish Development Assessment Committees would have stripped local governments of planning powers and given planning authority to a body of unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable people behind closed doors.
Critical to this initiative to fast-track developments by establishing DACs, make non-government schools and social housing exempt from a planning permit and for the Minister to become the Responsible Authority for these projects is the abolition of appeal rights for residents and ratepayers –a denial of democracy in our local planning system.
While some of these actions may not directly affect our community right now, what it signals is a Government apparently intent on incrementally eroding democracy in the planning system, removing from the process the level of government which knows its local municipality and planning issues best.
Community Meeting to address key issues in the Ombudsmans' report
This motion did not get seconded. It seems that Brimbank councillors are not interested in allowing people in this community to discuss their genuine and heart-felt concerns about the behaviours described in the Ombudsman Victoria report and the recommendations that the Ombudsman has made. People living in Brimbank haev been failed by their local reps year in year out and their local services have been affected by entrenched poor governance and abuse of power. Some of this has now been independently documented but my fellow councillors in the chamber will not afford us an opportunity to talk through, as a community, how we're best going to confront underlying problems and have confidence that we can get past all this.
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on 24/2/09
Subject: Community Meeting
Motion
That Council hold a community meeting to discuss the key points arising from the Ombudsman Victoria Investigation into the alleged improper conduct of councillors at Brimbank City Council.
Background
The Ombudsman Victoria recently released report into Brimbank council has created much community concern.
While the meeting on the 18th June will enable Council to demonstrate what it is doing to meet the recommendations of the report it does not allow the community a chance to discuss the key points, its concerns, or offer an opportunity for the community to discuss what it would like to see happen to ensure confidence in the democratic process.
Purpose
The aims of the community meeting would be to:
Provide an overview of the key points in the OV report
Provide an opportunity for questions and discussionProvide some suggestions for positive/constructive ways forward
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on 24/2/09
Subject: Community Meeting
Motion
That Council hold a community meeting to discuss the key points arising from the Ombudsman Victoria Investigation into the alleged improper conduct of councillors at Brimbank City Council.
Background
The Ombudsman Victoria recently released report into Brimbank council has created much community concern.
While the meeting on the 18th June will enable Council to demonstrate what it is doing to meet the recommendations of the report it does not allow the community a chance to discuss the key points, its concerns, or offer an opportunity for the community to discuss what it would like to see happen to ensure confidence in the democratic process.
Purpose
The aims of the community meeting would be to:
Provide an overview of the key points in the OV report
Provide an opportunity for questions and discussionProvide some suggestions for positive/constructive ways forward
Gambling - electronic gaming machines (pokies)
This is another motion that did not yield a seconder. Meanwhile Brimbank has reached number one in pokies losses in the state. Pokies (electronic gaming machines) continue to destry families and cause teerrible financial hardship. One mechanism Council can utilise to make running a pokies business for this sort of inhuman profit in Brimbank less attractive is to increase the taxes we demand from them.
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on 24/2/09
Subject: Differential Rate
Motion
That council adopt a differential rate for commercial gaming
properties and that it be levied at twice the commercial industrial rate.
Background
Council recognises that gambling is a legitimate form of leisure and entertainment. Council also acknowledges that gambling can have adverse consequences and seeks to encourage responsible gambling.
Council's Gambling Policy Statement and Gambling Action Plan 2006-2009, details Council's ongoing responses and direct actions that arise from the Gambling Policy.
Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs) were introduced in Victoria in 1992.
According to the 2006 Action Plan Brimbank currently has 953 EGMs in various locations throughout the municipality. Over the past decade gambling expenditure has risen significantly and community attitudes towards gambling have changed.
Gaming is a significant community problem in Brimbank and affects the entire community, not just problem gamblers. Gambling related problems are mainly associated with Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs). Brimbank is ranked third on the SEIFA scale of disadvantage in Victoria .Brimbank has more than 950 EGMs and despite a low density rank of 7.3 EGMs per 1000 adults, gaming losses are significantly higher than areas with higher machine densities and are now the most severe of any municipality in the state.
One of the key actions of Council's plan is to:
Integrate the Gambling Policy position into all key Council policies, plans and strategies.
A differential rate levied on this sort of antisocial activity would be one method of integrating Council’s policy position into our strategies and making it less attractive for venues to profit from EGM's in our municipality.
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on 24/2/09
Subject: Differential Rate
Motion
That council adopt a differential rate for commercial gaming
properties and that it be levied at twice the commercial industrial rate.
Background
Council recognises that gambling is a legitimate form of leisure and entertainment. Council also acknowledges that gambling can have adverse consequences and seeks to encourage responsible gambling.
Council's Gambling Policy Statement and Gambling Action Plan 2006-2009, details Council's ongoing responses and direct actions that arise from the Gambling Policy.
Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs) were introduced in Victoria in 1992.
According to the 2006 Action Plan Brimbank currently has 953 EGMs in various locations throughout the municipality. Over the past decade gambling expenditure has risen significantly and community attitudes towards gambling have changed.
Gaming is a significant community problem in Brimbank and affects the entire community, not just problem gamblers. Gambling related problems are mainly associated with Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs). Brimbank is ranked third on the SEIFA scale of disadvantage in Victoria .Brimbank has more than 950 EGMs and despite a low density rank of 7.3 EGMs per 1000 adults, gaming losses are significantly higher than areas with higher machine densities and are now the most severe of any municipality in the state.
One of the key actions of Council's plan is to:
Integrate the Gambling Policy position into all key Council policies, plans and strategies.
A differential rate levied on this sort of antisocial activity would be one method of integrating Council’s policy position into our strategies and making it less attractive for venues to profit from EGM's in our municipality.
Destruction of Melbourne's Green Wedge
Cr Marion Martin seconded this motion. Cr Martin currently holds the Council portfolio for sustainable environments. The motion was not carried. The green wedges are the lungs of Melbourne and its been incredibly difficult to protect what we have left. The expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary allows open slather development between Brimbank and Melton (which began as a satellite town), without any consideration of the impact on our rainfall, grasslands, schools, public transport, public housing, ecological sustainable design, cycling and walkability etc. For so many reasons this is just a short-sighted move that will further exacerbate the damage to Melbourne's diminishing natural assets.
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on 24/2/09
Subject: Destruction of Melbourne’s Green Wedges
Motion
That Council writes to Premier John Brumby and Minister for Planning Justin Madden, condemning the State Government plans for a green wedge land grab of nearly 23,000 ha to be handed to property developers, following the December Melbourne @ 5 Million report.
Background
The State Government is expected to release the plans in June, which will show a draft expanded Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) around new growth areas. These plans pose the most serious threat to the green wedges since the Bracks Government introduced an UGB to protect them in 2002 and possibly since the green wedges were introduced by the Hamer Government in 1971.
The green wedges are, as successive premiers and planning ministers have said, the lungs of Melbourne. With a city already gasping for breath, Melbourne's lungs are about to be choked with urban sprawl. This government land grab will be a cancer, not just in the proposed new growth corridors but in surrounding areas, where developers are expected to buy up environmentally and agriculturally significant grasslands.
Brimbank Council calls on the government to call off this plan for gross unnecessary destruction of the environment and of fertile farmland which provides food for Melbourne. It contradicts:
· promises by the former Planning Minister Rob Hulls that the 11,500 ha of land taken from the green wedges after the Government’s Smart Growth Committee process in 2005 would last until 2030;
· promises by the present Planning Minister Madden not to undermine his predecessors’ achievements,
· recommendations by last year’s Melbourne 2030 Audit group (accepted by State Government) that no further change to the UGB should be considered for at least five years.
· Letters from Planning Minister Madden in November 2008 saying the UGB was not under review.
This destruction is unnecessary as analysis by Jenni Bundy of the Green Wedge Protection Group demonstrates that the Government has miscalculated its land supply figures and that there is enough land within the current UGB to last until 2030. Increasing the development density in urban growth areas would also make housing more affordable. Instead, the Government is prepared to hand green wedge land that makes Melbourne a liveable city to developers for McMansions and suburban sprawl and the destruction of our precious remnant grasslands.
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on 24/2/09
Subject: Destruction of Melbourne’s Green Wedges
Motion
That Council writes to Premier John Brumby and Minister for Planning Justin Madden, condemning the State Government plans for a green wedge land grab of nearly 23,000 ha to be handed to property developers, following the December Melbourne @ 5 Million report.
Background
The State Government is expected to release the plans in June, which will show a draft expanded Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) around new growth areas. These plans pose the most serious threat to the green wedges since the Bracks Government introduced an UGB to protect them in 2002 and possibly since the green wedges were introduced by the Hamer Government in 1971.
The green wedges are, as successive premiers and planning ministers have said, the lungs of Melbourne. With a city already gasping for breath, Melbourne's lungs are about to be choked with urban sprawl. This government land grab will be a cancer, not just in the proposed new growth corridors but in surrounding areas, where developers are expected to buy up environmentally and agriculturally significant grasslands.
Brimbank Council calls on the government to call off this plan for gross unnecessary destruction of the environment and of fertile farmland which provides food for Melbourne. It contradicts:
· promises by the former Planning Minister Rob Hulls that the 11,500 ha of land taken from the green wedges after the Government’s Smart Growth Committee process in 2005 would last until 2030;
· promises by the present Planning Minister Madden not to undermine his predecessors’ achievements,
· recommendations by last year’s Melbourne 2030 Audit group (accepted by State Government) that no further change to the UGB should be considered for at least five years.
· Letters from Planning Minister Madden in November 2008 saying the UGB was not under review.
This destruction is unnecessary as analysis by Jenni Bundy of the Green Wedge Protection Group demonstrates that the Government has miscalculated its land supply figures and that there is enough land within the current UGB to last until 2030. Increasing the development density in urban growth areas would also make housing more affordable. Instead, the Government is prepared to hand green wedge land that makes Melbourne a liveable city to developers for McMansions and suburban sprawl and the destruction of our precious remnant grasslands.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Sister City Rafah, Palestine
This is the first motion I put to the chamber. It was particularly important at this time as we have many Palestinian residents in Brimbank who were being catastrophically affected by the bombings taking place. This motion was a humanitarian response to a very bloody crisis - a war that continues to divide people. Sister city relationships have been built by other councils around Australia as a way to promote friendship and understanding of peoples at a person to person level. This is exactly the role local government should take in fostering harmony in our community.
Geraldine
Notice of Motion
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on January 27th, 2009
Subject: Sister City Agreement with Rafah, Palestine
Motion:
That Council officers prepare a report to investigate the range of opportunities for a Sister City relationship between Rafah in Palestine and Brimbank City Council.
Given the recent bloodshed in Gaza it is timely that our Council reach out to the men, women and children of Palestine in a spirit of humanitarian friendship. A sister city relationship can help us to work together to create a lasting, sincere partnership to better foster understanding between people who have not traditionally had a chance to get to know one another. It is our belief that by forming such bonds between communities, misunderstandings can be overcome and distances and differences whether they be cultural, linguistic or political can be bridged. We believe these sorts of humanistic, people-to-people connections are vital to creating a world in which all people are treated with respect.
Background
Rafah is a town in the Gaza Strip, on the Egyptian border, and a nearby town on the Egyptian side of the border, on the Sinai Peninsula. Over the ages is has been known as Robihwa by the ancient Egyptians, Rafihu by the Assyrians, Raphia by the Greeks and Romans, Rafiach by Israelites and now Rafah.
In ancient times, it was an important settlement on the Othmans road, connecting Egypt with the Al-Sham countries (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine).
According to the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel at Camp David in 1982, Rafah was divided into two parts: One part was assigned to Egypt, the other part to the Gaza Strip (Palestine).
The people of Rafah and all Palestinians in the territories of Gaza and the West Bank, for that matter live under Israeli military occupation. They are not citizens of Israel or of any state, and have no rights of protest or redress. The occupation is a violent daily reality, in which Israeli soldiers, checkpoints, tanks, helicopter gunships, and F-16 fighter jets control every aspect of Palestinian lives, and have brought social, family and economic life to a virtual halt. What we often hear described simply as “the violence” in the Middle East cannot be understood without an understanding of what military occupation means.
Geraldine
Notice of Motion
To: Chief Executive Officer
Please note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on January 27th, 2009
Subject: Sister City Agreement with Rafah, Palestine
Motion:
That Council officers prepare a report to investigate the range of opportunities for a Sister City relationship between Rafah in Palestine and Brimbank City Council.
Given the recent bloodshed in Gaza it is timely that our Council reach out to the men, women and children of Palestine in a spirit of humanitarian friendship. A sister city relationship can help us to work together to create a lasting, sincere partnership to better foster understanding between people who have not traditionally had a chance to get to know one another. It is our belief that by forming such bonds between communities, misunderstandings can be overcome and distances and differences whether they be cultural, linguistic or political can be bridged. We believe these sorts of humanistic, people-to-people connections are vital to creating a world in which all people are treated with respect.
Background
Rafah is a town in the Gaza Strip, on the Egyptian border, and a nearby town on the Egyptian side of the border, on the Sinai Peninsula. Over the ages is has been known as Robihwa by the ancient Egyptians, Rafihu by the Assyrians, Raphia by the Greeks and Romans, Rafiach by Israelites and now Rafah.
In ancient times, it was an important settlement on the Othmans road, connecting Egypt with the Al-Sham countries (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine).
According to the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel at Camp David in 1982, Rafah was divided into two parts: One part was assigned to Egypt, the other part to the Gaza Strip (Palestine).
The people of Rafah and all Palestinians in the territories of Gaza and the West Bank, for that matter live under Israeli military occupation. They are not citizens of Israel or of any state, and have no rights of protest or redress. The occupation is a violent daily reality, in which Israeli soldiers, checkpoints, tanks, helicopter gunships, and F-16 fighter jets control every aspect of Palestinian lives, and have brought social, family and economic life to a virtual halt. What we often hear described simply as “the violence” in the Middle East cannot be understood without an understanding of what military occupation means.
Rudd's recklessly inadequate greenhouse targets
I put this motion to the chamber but no other councillor raised their hand to second this motion. Thus no debate on these matters took place. The very real impacts of climate change at the local level remain unaddressed by Council.
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive OfficerPlease note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 27th January, 2009
Subject: Greenhouse Gas Targets
Motion
That Council write to Kevin Rudd outlining its disappointment in the greenhouse gas reduction targets as below.
Dear Prime Minister Rudd,
In 2007, you said you believed that climate change was "one of the greatest moral and economic challenges of our time".
Yet on Monday, 15th December 2008, you announced a greenhouse gas reduction target of just 5% below 2000 levels by 2020 for Australia - that is, 4% below 1990 levels.
Mr Rudd, 5% is unacceptable and dangerous.
A target range of 5-15% will spell the end of Australian icons like the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and will place even greater stress on our already struggling Murray-Darling Basin.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has called for developed nations to reduce their emissions by between 25-40% below 1990 levels.
We are asking you to listen to the scientists and increase the target for Australia's emission reduction to 40%.
5% is not enough!
Geraldine
To: Chief Executive OfficerPlease note that it is my intention to propose the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 27th January, 2009
Subject: Greenhouse Gas Targets
Motion
That Council write to Kevin Rudd outlining its disappointment in the greenhouse gas reduction targets as below.
Dear Prime Minister Rudd,
In 2007, you said you believed that climate change was "one of the greatest moral and economic challenges of our time".
Yet on Monday, 15th December 2008, you announced a greenhouse gas reduction target of just 5% below 2000 levels by 2020 for Australia - that is, 4% below 1990 levels.
Mr Rudd, 5% is unacceptable and dangerous.
A target range of 5-15% will spell the end of Australian icons like the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and will place even greater stress on our already struggling Murray-Darling Basin.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has called for developed nations to reduce their emissions by between 25-40% below 1990 levels.
We are asking you to listen to the scientists and increase the target for Australia's emission reduction to 40%.
5% is not enough!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)