Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Notice to Rescind Council Resolution: Meeting Procedure Local Law

Council Resolution proposed to be rescinded: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Motion: That the above resolution adopted by the Council be rescinded and that the following motion be put to the Council in substitution.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?

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!

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.

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