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
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
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)