By Campbell Spence

Image: Bryan Mears, Beti Jay, Cr Rhonda Clark, Brendan Perera Rod, Hardy and Cr Christina Sirakoff   

Now is the time to vote in the Council elections if you haven’t already done so. If you haven’t received a ballot paper in the mail you should visit the Port Melbourne Town Hall and complete your ballot paper. Voting is compulsory and you must vote before by 6pm on 25th October.

If you are undecided, vote for truly independent candidates while being aware of the 'fakes'. We recommend that you vote for the four competent candidates (pictured above) who all live in their wards and are endorsed by the Residents of Port Phillip.

Beti Jay – South Melbourne Ward

Rod Hardy – Albert Park Ward

Bryan Mears - Lakeside Ward

Brendan Perera – Alma Ward

To find out more about the four candidates click on the link - https://ropp.org.au/

These candidates will represent residents and are not beholden to political parties, unions, activists and minority vested interests. 

They have not signed any pledges to support and fund groups that seek to put their snouts in the Council’s money trough. 

They have not signed pledges to a union to grow Council jobs, remove carparking, construct bicycle infrastructure that destroys the livelihood of small businesses, remove heritage protections to allow high density housing and duplicate services that are the responsibility of state and federal governments.  

If enough like-minded candidates are elected, they will deliver:

1. Immediate rates freeze without cutting services. Efficiencies can be found by cutting wasteful spending and focusing on getting the basics right like waste collection, sports grounds and facilities, parks and gardens, street and beach cleaning.
2. Cleaner and safer streets with thriving shops, cafes, restaurants and hotels, free of antisocial behaviours, street campers and drugs. Advocate for more police resources and improve local laws.
3. Protect heritage of our iconic and beautiful suburbs. Stop inappropriate development.
4. Improve Council’s customer services and rebuild trust in delivering excellent services and stop the frustration we often experience.
5. Sensible outcomes for residents. They will support residents rather than doing the bidding of political parties and vested minorities.

Vote for independent candidates who are not members of any political parties and live in your ward. Check out the candidates in your ward https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/voting/2024-local-council-elections/port-phillip-city-council/nominations

See below for our How to Vote cards

If you would like to speak to the candidates, you may contact them by telephone.

• Brenda Perera – Alma Ward                     0436 363 126
• Beti Jay – South Melbourne Ward            0404 338 409
• Bryan Mears – Lakeside Ward                  0438 308 157
• Rod Hardy – Albert Park Ward                  0425 409 483

By Rod Mitchell

Over the last few years, our councillors declared a climate emergency and soon after an economic emergency. Now there is talk of a housing emergency. It’s as if the Port Philip residents are fed a rolling list of “crises” as a means of galvanising sections of the voting public and displaying the councillor’s passion, sincerity and of course, readiness for higher office at the state or federal level. It does not matter that these glib two-word catch all’s don’t materialise into anything substantive at council level. It is about identification and herding the voting blocs, more than anything visible on the ground. 

In the current council elections, many candidates are spruiking the “Housing Emergency” and their intended focus on this major issue if they win office. While housing is a serious issue, this would have to be the most disingenuous campaign pledge sprouted by the candidate hopefuls in the City of Port Phillip elections.

This same stunt has been used by Federal and State governments - remember the recent state government pledge of 800,000 houses over the decade or 80,000 per year. Reality Check - housing starts are now at a record low and nowhere near the 80,000 per annum level as pledged by the State Government.

Several factors are at work which are making housing unaffordable and contracting supply. 

• The “Big Build” programme instigated by the State Government not only has caused a shortage in skilled labour but has also put pressure on labour costs and materials; 
• Over regulation and red tape; 
• The State Government through tenancy protection legislation, additional legislated landlord requirements and land tax has effectively created a capital strike. An ineffective time delayed VCAT process adds to the current woes. Simply put, the government has made it unattractive for the private sector to invest in housing; and
• The Federal government through an over ambitious immigration programme of an additional 500,000 plus immigrants per year, has caused additional strain on the housing market.

Importantly to point out is that building regulations are a Federal and State responsibility, so any argument about changes to regulations in housing by budding councillors can also be ruled out.

Enter Housing Politics at the Local level.

In any discussion on housing in the City of Port Phillip, the following should be front and centre or made at least clear:

• Council’s do not have a mandated role to provide housing. That is the responsibility of Federal and State governments.
• Rate collections for the CoPP like all councils, are capped at a maximum 2.75% mandated by the State Government. Barely keeping in line with inflation with little room for additional programs. 
• Any increase in expenditure on housing initiatives by the CoPP will mean something else within the council budget will need to be cut or removed.
• If you have been listening to council meetings over 2024, the “housing advocates” in chambers are like a scratched record, emphasising continually that there is no possibility of cuts elsewhere within the budget. So, with limited opportunity for substantive rate increases due to the rate cap and no current expenditure reductions, where is the money coming from to meet this housing emergency?  
• And are additional rate increases what the citizenry wants, when the real “emergency” for the average punter is a cost-of-living crisis?

One councillor in 2024 advocated an additional $1 million a year and increasing each year by an additional $1 million to be spent on social housing. Ask yourself how far that would go in any new build or purchase of existing houses?

If the additional monies were spent on rental subsidies, the immediate economic affect would be to force rents even higher as more entrants enter the market. Simply put, there is no money or role for any meaningful council intervention in the housing market.

What can Council Meaningfully do in the Housing Space?

Council has a planning division which has demonstrated to be cumbersome, over bureaucratic and unable to deliver on required turnaround times. This is something that the CoPP can improve on, and that’s where councillors should be demanding action.

Percentage of planning applications decided in required timeframes

            2019/2020      2020/2021      2021/2022      2022/2023      2023/2024

72%         45%                  57 %              60%                N/A

Further, the time taken to decide planning applications, is over 100 days!

If the CoPP and its councillors are serious about improving the supply of housing, speeding up the planning application process would be a good place to start! 

As you look to place your vote over the next week and you hear the cries from those standing for election that they will put the housing emergency front and centre, know very well that while the intentions maybe well placed, their ability to do anything meaningful is next to zero. In fact, any sensible voter who understood the economics of housing and where housing responsibility lies, would see it for what it is – Virtue Signalling!

Let’s all hope that the next declared emergency(s) at council, is a “roads, rates and rubbish emergency” or a “graffiti emergency” or a “community safety emergency”. The sooner council gets back into its lane the better. It starts with us. Vote for councillors who want to deal with the basic council remit first.

By Campbell Spence 

I have been reflecting on the unsavoury campaigning of our political opponents in the Council elections and have concluded that we must have been effective over the last four years to cause such rancour.

Why would our opponents target our community association and Residents of Port Phillip endorsed candidates with their unsubtle and grubby politics? We are clearly a threat to the ambitions of aspiring politicians and vested interests, all with their noses in the ratepayer's money trough.

One such group, Progressive Port Phillip (PPP) has spent a large amount of money campaigning to elect members of the Greens and Labor parties and several candidates with links to these political parties and/or activist groups, like Extinction Rebellion.

This group has advocated to vote for Labor, Greens or aligned activists and to put RoPP candidates last on ballot papers. Also it appears that the self-titled 'progressives' and their affiliates have coordinated to spread their candidates across wards. Why else would several candidates run for wards in which they do not live?

One candidate has been a long-term member of the PPP, and supports rates rises and wasteful spending through voluntarily duplication of State and Federal government services.

How can this candidate claim to be independent, when PPP has campaigned to elect Labor and Greens Party candidates in this council election as well as in the 2020 elections?

We may never know how much money this group has spent on their campaign to help elect their politically aligned associates even though candidates are required under the local government act to report donation and in-kind support. 

Has this group found a workaround to the rules? If a candidate doesn't ask for the support of PPP or the link cannot be proven, then they may not be required to disclose PPP's in-kind support? 

All candidates must disclose donations or in-kind support over $500 within 40 days after election day. This includes candidates who were not elected and/or did not receive any campaign donations or gifts. 

In the 2020 elections candidates who received in-kind support from PPP did not disclose the amounts received. It would seem unlikely that the amount will be disclosed in the 2024 candidate returns.

Is this group intentionally pulling the wool over voters eyes while raising questions about the integrity of the Residents of Port Phillip; a clever redirection?

Our candidates will accurately disclose the amount of donation and in-kind support they received from our community organisation as we did in 2020. We have nothing to hide.

By Campbell Spence

Image Above: Bryan Mears, Beti Jay, Cr Rhonda Clark, Brendan Perera Rod, Hardy and Cr Christina Sirakoff   

Residents have started receiving ballot papers in the mail. If you have not yet received a ballot paper, you should receive one over the next few days. There are no polling booths in this election. Voting is compulsory and your completed ballot paper must be date stamped by Australia Post before by 6pm on 25th October.

Residents of Port Phillip have endorsed four independent and competent candidates (pictured above). If elected, they will put the needs of residents first and foremost, ahead of personal political ambitions and party politics directed by Spring Street or Canberra.

Each of the four candidates live in their wards and have been listening to residents about their needs and expectations of Council services. To find out more about the four candidates, click on the link - https://ropp.org.au/

Some readers have asked for advice on voting in the five wards where we are not endorsing candidates. Our recommendation is to vote for independent candidates who are not members of political parties and who live in your ward. Beware of voting for candidates who have helicoptered in from other suburbs and who are aligned with political parties.

Below are images of each candidate’s How to Vote Cards.

If you would like to speak to the candidates, you may contact them by telephone.

• Brendan Perera – Alma Ward                 0436 363 126
• Beti Jay – South Melbourne Ward          0404 338 409
• Bryan Mears – Lakeside Ward               0438 308 157
• Rod Hardy – Albert Park Ward               0425 409 483

By Brendan Perera

My name is Brendan Perera, and I am an Independent (Residents of Port Phillip) RoPP Candidate for Alma Ward - Port Phillip Council. I'd like to share a little-known fact about myself: my family is originally from British Ceylon. Like many immigrant families from across the British Empire, we travelled to Malaya in the mid-1800s seeking a better life. Malaya eventually became Malaysia and Singapore in 1965, and as a result of the post-independence separation, half of my family still lives in Singapore.

In the first picture, the man in the centre is the legendary statesman Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, former Prime Minister of Singapore. The man second from the left is my uncle, Alvin Perera.

The second picture was taken in Singapore this year. On the left is my dad, Lloyd Perera, and on my right is my uncle Alvin.

My family has always been proud to be staunch supporters of Lee Kuan Yew, and to this day, we carry the values he instilled in us: integrity, a belief in meritocracy, and excellence. In his younger days, my dad worked with Lee Kuan Yew's father, Lee Chin Koon. I share this story because it is important—my political mindset, my values, and my worldview have been deeply shaped by Lee Kuan Yew. This influence becomes evident when I am right; I certainly do not bend with the wind, perhaps a trait of stubbornness instilled in all Malayans. I will always strive to be correct, rather than being politically correct.

Your vote matters. Lee Kuan Yew had a saying: when political parties no longer serve the people, they become irrelevant. Let me assure you, I am not currently a member of any political party and I most certainly not an activist. I intend to serve you, the residents of the City of Port Phillip.

If elected, I will hold the council accountable for their spending, and I will demand they adhere to the highest levels of integrity and efficiency. It may be an unpalatable view to many, but our state is $260 billion in debt and rising, businesses are going bankrupt, crime is increasing, antisemitism is rampant, and people are moving away. We can no longer afford to be complacent. I will help govern the City of Port Phillip effectively and equitably.

I would like to add that the City of Port Phillip now has historical and cultural connections to Malaysia, Singapore, and Asia at large—thanks, in large part, to people like you who support candidates like me. I hope to earn your trust, build a more resilient and thriving city, and leave it in a much better shape than the one I will inherit.

**Who is Lee Kuan Yew? He is the father of modern-day Singapore and has advised countless U.S. Presidents, European leaders, and Henry Kissinger. Margaret Thatcher would read his speeches during her daily briefings to gain insight into his thinking during her time as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. China today is shaped by his influence. India’s current Foreign Secretary, S. Jaishankar, still speaks of him and his impact on India. Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott once told me he regretted not meeting Lee Kuan Yew in person, though he delivered a heartfelt eulogy in Parliament after his passing.

Authorized by Brendan Perera

P.O.Box 1083, South Melbourne 3205

By Campbell Spence

Image – See https://ropp.org.au for a higher resolution image

Residents of Port Phillip have advocated on behalf of residents who objected to public toilets being built near a primary school, unnecessary and dangerous bicycle infrastructure, excess Council rates and charges, poor customer service, wasteful spending and pandering to politically aligned vested interests.

Cr Rhonda Clark and Cr Christina Sirakoff who were endorsed by RoPP have served their constituents conscientiously on many Council matters over their four-year term. The graphic pictured above shows how Councillors voted on a few key topics.

Councillors Clark, Sirakoff and Pearl voted consistently against rates rises over the four years. They voted for a rates freeze without cutting services and by finding efficiencies and stopping wasteful spending.

They voted against additional funding for the Eco Centre which is an educational facility for school children because it is not the role of local councils to educate school children. The facility is also a club house for several politically aligned interest groups that lobbied for bicycle infrastructure that was rejected by most residents and traders.

To illustrate how Councillors are influenced by minority groups, most voted for the hugely unpopular pop-up bike lanes in September 2021 only to support their removal in December 2022 after a huge resident backlash.

The Shrine to Sea project was another example of how many Councillors were out of touch with residents. On several occasions, Council sought to remove two lanes of vehicle traffic and replace them with separated bike lanes. The project was supported by vested interest groups linked to the Eco Centre but was rejected by most residents in petitions and via speaking at Council meetings.

If you want Councillors that represent most residents, then you should vote for independent candidates endorsed by the Residents of Port Phillip (pictured below).  For more information visit https://ropp.org.au

• $100,000 to organisations that support private renters, when in fact that is the role currently undertaken by our State and Federal governments.
• An increase in annual funding for "housing emergency" of $1 million per annum.

By Cambell Spence

Council elections are fast approaching. There will be no polling booths at this election. Ballot papers will be posted to you over four days from 7-10^th October and you have until 4pm on 25^th October to post your completed ballot.

Residents of Port Phillip are pleased to endorse four competent candidates who if elected, will put the needs of residents first and foremost, ahead of personal political ambitions and party politics directed by Spring Street or Canberra.

Each of the four candidates live in their wards and have been listening to residents and have a deep understanding of the local issues within those wards. To find out more about the four candidates click on the link - https://ropp.org.au/

If you would like to speak to them, here are their telephone numbers.

• Brendan Perera – Alma Ward                 0436 363 126
• Beti Jay – South Melbourne Ward          0404 338 409
• Bryan Mears – Lakeside Ward               0438 308 157
• Rod Hardy – Albert Park Ward               0425 409 483

If elected, the Residents of Port Phillip Councillors will prioritise the following:

3. AN IMMEDIATE RATES FREEZE by finding efficiencies without cutting services. Holding council accountable by benchmarking against other councils. Current budget of $250M and 850 sta­ff is unsustainable.

Residents of Port Phillip have endorsed candidates in four of the nine new single Council Wards – see the electoral map below. 

Authorised by C. Spence, PO BOX 1083, South Melbourne, 3205.

By Rod Hardy

Recently a Port Phillip Councillor put up a Housing Emergency Motion (4 September) that proposed amongst other measures, a plan to increase medium density development through rezoning land and advocating for planning rules to encourage densification and to enable greater supply in areas of heritage overlays.

Fortunately, the motion was defeated because Residents of Port Phillip Councillors and others voted against it.

We are living through a housing crisis as evidenced by a shortage of housing, high and unaffordable property values and high rents. Council has a role to play in fast tracking planning approvals and Port Phillip has a proud track record of freeing land for social and affordable housing. About 7% of Port Phillip properties are social and affordable housing – one of the highest in Victoria.

However, we must draw the line at rezoning properties that are protected by heritage overly and ensure we retain the magnificent heritage character of Port Phillip. After all, this is one of the main reasons why we live here.

Be careful who you vote for in the upcoming Council elections, as four Councillors voted in favour of changes to heritage protections and a candidate for Albert Park Ward publicly supported the motion. Do you want to see heritage homes replaced with ugly blocks of flats?

I am a candidate for Albert Park Ward. If elected, I will advocate to protect and retain the heritage character of Middle Park, St Kilda West and Albert Park and more generally all of Port Phillip .

By NTSC Alliance  (No to swingers club alliance)

Residents have lodged a submission to VCAT opposing the recent approval by the City of Port Phillip Council for the establishment of a licensed 200-person sex on premises venue at 427 City Road, South Melbourne.

This location is entirely inappropriate for such a venue, given its proximity to residential areas, schools, and family-oriented businesses. Despite numerous objections from residents and business owners, the Council has granted a permit that disregards the character and values of our neighbourhood and what the area should try to aspire to in the future.

Thanks to the overwhelming support from the local community, the petition organised by a group of affected businesses and residents has now accumulated over 1,200 signatures. This is a clear demonstration of the strong opposition to the Council's approval of this venue.

https://www.change.org/notoswingersclub

https://www.gofundme.com/f/notoswingersclub

https://notoswingersclub.blogspot.com/

Key concerns that remain unresolved include:

• Incompatibility with the area’s character: The proposed venue is fundamentally at odds with the residential and community-focused nature of South Melbourne and Montague.
• Parking inadequacies: The venue offers no on-site parking, and Council's decision to allocate two on-street car spaces for the operator disregards the needs of local businesses.
• Lack of a waste management plan: The absence of a proper waste management plan poses potential health and environmental risks.
• Excessive patron capacity: Council’s decision to approve a 200-person venue, despite recommendations from the Traffic Department to cap it at 150, raises concerns about overcrowding and increased traffic congestion.
• Safety and amenity concerns: Residents and business owners fear the negative impact on public safety and local amenity, both during the day and at night.
• Future directions: What will prevent a proliferation of similar businesses being established in the area? Is this really Council’s vision for this area? It’s certainly not what the local community want.

Our community feels that the Council has failed to give proper consideration to our objections and has overlooked the long-term impact this decision will have on the area’s future.

As the local Council elections approach, this will be one of the important issues that all candidates for the new 9 ward structure being adopted by the City of Port Phillip will need to consider when preparing their policies and platforms for their constituents to consider.

By Rod Mitchell

As we get closer to the Council elections in October, it is time for reflection on whether we have had good value from our elected representatives over the last four years. We do not need to look further than two recent surveys on Council performance to know the answer – both surveys summarised a bare pass when it comes to the basis remit of Rates, Roads and Rubbish.

As a voter in the up-coming October elections ,ask yourself this:

• Do you feel you get value for money from your rates?
• Do you feel that basic amenity is as good as you would want or expect it to be? and
• Do you feel that Council is responsive to your needs?

If you feel like many of us that the answer is NO, then you should read on.

Waste and Mismanagement

Over the last four years we have seen millions in wasteful expenditure that has included:

• The Start, Stop, Start, Stop St Kilda Triangle incompetence, with over $500,000 wasted in the last mismanaged process.
• The St Kilda toilet block fiasco, where hundreds of thousands were spent on a proposal that lacked from the start, sensible community consultation.
• The Start, Stop, Start of the Luna Park and Palais Revitalisation with poor initial planning and cost over runs from the original contract and
• The Waste Management Contract where even the Councillors admitted that they failed in the due diligence process, costing over $300,000 in reports and a renegotiated contract. And where we the ratepayers to this day, cannot access what the additional costs borne by Council’s failure are?

No One Held Responsible

In all the above examples of mismanagement, one thing stands out, besides the loss of ratepayer money. From what we gather, no one in Council lost their job or was demoted. Councillors, instead of demanding accountability, appear to have walked away from a core responsibility, some even finding excuses, confusing their role as custodians with that of being Council staff.

Grass Roots Councillors or Political Operatives?

It is of course not surprising how we got to this sad state of affairs. When Councillors stand under political labels like Liberal, Labor, or Greens, it is a sure thing that what transpires next is the ugly deal making and ideology that they surrender too.

Common sense, fiscal responsibility, value for money and ensuring basic amenity are horse traded for shoring up voting blocks and pork barrelling to win favour with disparate groups whose interests are not aligned with the average resident.

Some of the current crop of Councillors see their role in local Council as a short-term stint, knowing that local government is the necessary rite of passage to get preselection for the bigger prize in state or federal politics. Two of the Councillors have tried and failed that transition. Three of our current Councillors who are all renominating, do not pay rates in the CoPP, and some of the Councillors looking for a second, or third term standing in the St Kilda ward, do not even reside in St Kilda!

But you can do something about it in October:

Message to Voters in St Kilda

Three sound rules you should consider when you vote for a candidate in October.

• The Candidate must reside in St Kilda Ward,
• The Candidate should not be a current or ex-Councillor,
• If the Candidate is standing under a political party banner- Labor, Liberals or the Greens, put them last.

Get the politics and ideology out of local elections. It’s time to wipe the slate clean!

Author: Rod Mitchell is not a member of RoPP or any political party. His opinions are his own. 

By Dean Hurlston (President of Council Watch)

During these Local Council Elections - the Rainbow Local Government (RLG) Pledge is back.

As a gay man, I wanted to share my views and experiences over the last 4 years.

What is the Rainbow Local Government (RLG)?

The RLG is a campaign from the Victorian Pride Lobby (read, LGBTQIA+ Lobby) that seeks to advance the LGBTQIA+ agenda in Local Councils, BY ASKING ELECTION CANDIDATES TO COMMIT TO VARIOUS ACTIONS IF SUCCESSFULLY ELECTED, including:

• Establishing or continuing an LGBTQIA+ advisory committee
• Developing or renewing an LGBTQIA+ action plan
• Flying the rainbow flag and installing a rainbow (pedestrian) crossing.

You can read the detail and decide for yourself here: rainbowvotes.com.au 

Candidates are asked a series of questions, from what Council or Ward you are running for, through to, most importantly, your gender, sexuality, and whether you are transgender or intersex.

This is very personal information. I think most people would be very cautious about ever answering such questions to anyone.

The Pledge also asks Candidates to commit to two main points:

1. to "always act to further equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, and asexual (LGBTQIA+) people, work to end discrimination, and stand up for human rights", to "take seriously the impact that my actions and decisions both as a candidate for local council, and a councillor, can have on my local LGBTQIA+ community"
2. to "actively consider and consult with LGBTQIA+ members of my community and provide them with an opportunity to be heard".

The initiatives the Lobby works towards, are understandably, all written in a language that invites acceptance at face value, and we probably all agree that everyone should be treated with kindness, courtesy and respect. That's fair on everyone.

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 has clear obligations on Councils and how they must behave.

1. Councils (along with all Statutory bodies) have an obligation to act in a way that is compatible with Human Rights.
2. Councils must provide Statements of Compatibility with Human Rights on any Local Laws and decisions of Council that are enacted.
3. Members of the public have a right to participate in public life (Council decisions and meetings)
4. Members of the public have a right to vote in Council Elections
5. Members of the public have the right to equal access to the Public Service and Public Office
6. Council Services must be provided to all, free from discrimination.

In Victoria, The Sex Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

Why does this matter? Well, because as an employer and as a service provider, Councils cannot discriminate on the basis of the items identified within the Pledge - gender, sexuality, and whether you are transgender or intersex. 

Councils also cannot ask people for this information without explicit reasons to do so.

So why the need for the Pledge? What is it trying to fix?

It is claimed it is designed to ensure it addresses the disadvantage faced by the LGBTQIA+ community, which is a noble pursuit. But what discrimination in Council run services is it addressing? There is zero evidence in Councils of discrimination towards the LGBTQIA+ community.

Rainbow Local Government however is an emboldened small splinter group of activists who demand compliance with their agenda.

I have watched men and women Councillors/Community members be cyber stalked, targeted, vilified and set upon, for not agreeing with them, or for simply saying something the group does not agree with. What happened to free speech?

It’s no secret that within the Greens party there is a split between those that a) support trans people but do not want to remove women’s and girls’ rights to single sex spaces and respect this view and b) the small but loud trans first, women second elements. The trans vs women narrative has effectively split and destroyed long standing good elements of the party.

Whilst the RLG may be a good idea on paper, it has become the program that its founders use to ingratiate themselves with Councillors “who play on the team”.

For those who somehow are not on the RLG team, you will be watched and potentially harassed.

On the trans issue, Trans people need our support, they don't need harassment.

Like all of us, they just need to be left alone to live their lives.

What ruins any intent of the Rainbow local government program and pledge is the manner in which their loyal associated foot soldiers target and vilify, instead of seeking to educate and support. 

Wherever comments on social media go against the pro LGBTQIA+ narrative, a loyal band of attack dogs go in for the social media kill and will hound over and over again. The aim of this swarming is shame, compliance or to force you off the platform.

God help you if you make a mistake on the topic, get your words wrong, or in any way express your view in a way they do not agree with.

Good governance.

Local Government is only as good as its Governance Processes

The Pledge and indeed ANY pledge may undermine the strength of Councillor Governance and insert promises and commitments, upon the successful candidates.

This pledge also fails to recognise that councillors once elected, will be required to make an oath of affirmation or office to undertake the duties of Councillor in the best interest of the (whole) municipal community. Not part. Not some. Not LGBTQIA+ more than others. Just everyone.

What else?

Signatories to the Pledge are advised that they "will receive a mark on our website based on whether you" “fully, partially, or refuse to commit to the five priorities". In addition, if you say anything RLG do not agree with, you get special banners that are red colour saying you should be avoided when it comes to voter support, and they are there for good. Demonising you without a right of reply, permanently on a public website is unfair.

LGBTQIA+ Candidates are also given a special branding and priority page.

How is that fair?

https://rainbowvotes.com.au/candidates

Putting all of this together, it is not difficult to see how the Pledge is, first and foremost, designed to make you commit in full to the Lobby's agenda (otherwise you will be named and shamed publicly), and to keep you committed after you have been elected (otherwise you will be, again, named and shamed, putting your public reputation at stake).

In political terms the Rainbow Local Government is simply a TROJAN HORSE.

A trojan horse is a “thing” presented as one thing, like a great initiative, that’s ultimately USED to force, demand, abuse or coercively control instead.

Sadly, that is exactly what the RLG program does.

Last words.

State and Federal governments have strict guidelines about inclusive language and the handling of sensitive information such as gender identity, sex characteristics, sex attraction, sexual orientation and practice, and sexual identity.

The handling of such information is incredibly private in its nature. This kind of information is not something that anyone should be requested to divulge while running for local council elections, or that should be displayed on a website for anyone to see.

The Privacy AND DATA PROTECTION Act and related National principles also contain strict requirements in the handling of such information. Council Watch therefore recommends that NO candidate should disclose this information to Rainbow Local Government or any other organisation in running for Council.

Further, this labelling exercise effectively disenfranchises non LGBTQIA+ candidates, as if they are somehow "less than" for not claiming the LGBTQIA+ label, or for simply not supporting the agenda which arguably, has very little (if anything) to do with what the general community is increasingly expecting from their Councils, which is more transparency, more accountability, better services, better infrastructure, value for money, and lower rates. 

The Pledge also has the understandable wider problem of creating the incentive for bad actors to falsely appropriate and identify the LGBTQIA+ label for political advantage. The Pledge is therefore a major disservice to the LGBTQIA+ community, and to the ratepayers at large, it undermines good governance and democratic processes.

Council Watch strongly recommends that candidates DO NOT SIGN the Pledge from Rainbow Local Government entirely, in the pursuit of GOOD GOVERNANCE.

The idea of a candidate survey is fine, but a pledge COMMITS candidates, which may not be in the spirit of good governance.

Council candidates are much more than their LGBTQIA+ status and it is actually irrelevant to running for local Council.

There is nothing at all inherently wrong in supporting the LGBTQIA+ community, indeed the role of a Councillor is to ensure they support and consider the views, needs, and opinions of everyone in the whole community, but the Rainbow Local Government pledge should be avoided.

To all candidates, please just do not sign pledges, it may cause you untold issues if you are elected.

By Campbell Spence

Residents of Port Phillip – RoPP are a group dedicated to making the Port Phillip local Council more efficient, improve customer service, and accountable to the residents and ratepayers of Port Phillip.

In seeking to achieve these ends, RoPP advocates for the removal of party-political politics from local council – leaving politics in their rightful place – namely state and federal parliaments- and that all council expenditure be directly referable to matters pertaining to the City of Port Phillip ie. ‘within the direct responsibly of council’ or to put it another way – ‘within and not outside council’s lane’.

Expenditure or projects properly suited to or under the purview of the State or Federal governments should not be projects occupying any council expenditure.

Further, RoPP seeks to improve core customer services and to curb the excesses, waste and inefficiencies of the council’s and its bureaucracy's use of funds and to streamline and achieve efficiencies in its expenditure.

RoPP does NOT seek to reduce any of the proper services or projects provided by the council. In fact, with further funds being available to council as a result of creating efficiencies and curbing excesses, additional funds would become available, where necessary, for existing ‘intra vires’ council services and projects.

RoPP also seeks, as part of its aim to make council more efficient and accountable to residents and ratepayers, to freeze and hopefully reduce rates and charges paid which are grossly excessive and greatly exceed amounts levied by comparable councils, while at the same time improve the services provided by council to its residents and ratepayers. Compare your rates here: https://ropp.org.au/property-rates-calculator/

RoPP can obviously only achieve these aims by having enough of its members running for council being elected. While in the last period of council, with two elected RoPP councillors, a lot was able to be achieved, RoPP’s councillors were continuously thwarted by councillors with political affiliations and agendas.

This has, and continues to, lead to waste and inappropriate, non-council related expenditure. It also leads to services which should be offered, not being approved, in favour of expenditure which is either not properly within council’s ‘lane’ or done purely for political reasons.

RoPP and its councillors, are continually being attacked on the basis that they have political affiliations. Nothing can be further from the truth. The essence of RoPP’s policy is to remove party politics from council. The fact that RoPP’s current councillors each have differing political beliefs as do those standing under its banner for election in the upcoming council, clearly establishes this reality.

Politics HAVE NO PLACE in council and a vote for a RoPP candidate is a vote to eradicate party politics from council and leave it where it properly belongs – in the state and federal parliaments.

By Bryan Mears

Following Council consideration of issues raised by me and our Queens Lane Residents Action Group (QLRAG) during 2021, the City of Port Phillip on 8/12/21, decided to “assess” the current function of Queens Lane. Fully 2 years later following still further representations by me, CoPP tabled the “Queens Lane Traffic and Parking Review” on the 6/12/23.

Council agreed to implement 3 recommendations accepted at the 6/12/23 meeting that I attended. After 8 months of inactivity, during which time I attempted to get clarification on timelines for implementation, I attended the 7/8/24 meeting. Over 7 years have elapsed since the last review of Queens Lane traffic issues.

We are now advised by letter dated 14/8/2024 that subject to “community feedback on the proposals, the projects will be considered for funding in the Council’s Project Portfolio for 2024/2025.”

The community have given “feedback” for 3 years!

Apart from some extra speed signs, clearly, the proposed installations will not be completed for another 2 years. The Council have kicked this can down the road for at least 3 terms.

Long suffering Lakeside Ward residents must surely wonder what actually happens at the CoPP in respect to focusing on the needs of our community. The bureaucracy surrounding this long drawn out process is costly, inefficient and profoundly frustrating.

We have an opportunity to change direction and reset the Council focus. At the upcoming election it is time to refresh, renew and reinvigorate Council. New ideas and approaches to best serve our communities in Port Philip demands new Councillors who are committed to our resident’s needs.

Vote 1 for Bryan Mears in Lakeside Ward in October 2024.

Building bridges: a shared future for Port Phillip
By Brendan Perera

I am running as an independent candidate for the City of Port Phillip Council, representing Alma Ward. I have lived in CoPP for 10 years and own a unit in Alma Ward, so I am a true local. I am a civil engineer by profession, a member of Engineers Australia, and I am not affiliated with any political parties, unions or activist groups.

Why am I running for Council?

There have been several bad decisions and proposals made by Council (such as the approval of the Carlisle Street murals, the Inkerman bicycle lane proposal to remove 114 carparks, and the decline of our main streets – these are just the tip of the iceberg). It may be an unpalatable truth to many, but our Council seems only interested in pandering to vested interest groups and playing divisive identity politics, rather than listening to our community.

The time has come for fresh leadership – someone with integrity, who will listen and act in the best interests of the community. This is where I need your help to get the politics out of Port Phillip Council and let us get back to putting the community first.

Building bridges

After the tragic events of October 7, I understand that some may feel reluctant to vote for or endorse someone outside their community. But I see the pain and fear our community is enduring and I understand. From major political parties showing tacit approval for pro-Hamas-led Palestinian protests in Melbourne, to the shocking arson attack on a Jewish MP’s office in St Kilda, the rise of antisemitism in Port Phillip is deeply disturbing. 

I stand with you. I want to assure you that I am a friend and ally to your community. An attack on any community is an attack on all of us.

Shared values and ideals

My grandparents endured the brutality and indignity of the Japanese occupation of Malaya, and my parents lived through the racial riots of May 13, 1969, in Malaysia, where ultra-nationalist Muslim Malays, armed with machetes, went house to house, searching for minorities to take out their frustrations over their perceived loss of power at the electoral ballot. 

In both times of crisis, what became clear was that our neighbours, regardless of race, religion or creed, stood by us. In those moments, shared values of humanity and decency united us. I carry those same values with me today. I believe that by focusing on our shared values, we can overcome division and build stronger, more inclusive communities.

As a candidate, I will be direct. Whether I am elected or not, I will never support Council overstepping its remit on issues that belong at the state or federal level. Neither am I here to pit one community against another. My goal is to listen to the community, build bridges, unite us around our shared values and make the City of Port Phillip a better place for everyone.

The way forward

If elected, I will push for an immediate rate freeze without cuts to existing services. We are currently in a cost-of-living crisis and the City of Port Phillip has a budget of $250 million, with a high staff count of 850. This does not benchmark well, compared to other councils. Council must find efficiencies. 

Council must come up with better design proposals for bicycle lanes, to minimise the impact on resident parking and economic damage to businesses. While I am supportive of having a live music venue in the St Kilda Triangle, from experience, I believe the current plan lacks a clear Return On Investment and is unlikely to revitalise Acland and Fitzroy Streets, as intended. We need to take a broader, more holistic approach to the projects we undertake.

Unlike previously elected Councillors, I will not support frivolous expenditure, like foreign aid to East Timor or symbolic gestures, such as motions against nuclear weapons or declaring a climate emergency. The Council’s role is to provide essential services to our residents and ratepayers, and I intend to keep the focus there.

I am running to bring practical, effective leadership to the City of Port Phillip Council, free from political gamesmanship and I am focused on delivering real results for our community. 

I hope to earn your trust and your vote to help build a brighter future for all of us.

Caption: Brendan Perera on a visit to Jerusalem in 2022

By Christina Sirakoff

Following extensive community feedback and several petitions, Councillors voted up proposed new dog-off leash guidelines that do not reduce dog off-leash spaces and increase the times dog owners can access beaches in both Port Melbourne and Elwood. Overall, there is a net gain in dog off-leash areas.

Council voted unanimously for the Officers’ Recommendations for the following proposed changes:

• Three Premium sports ovals: SS Anderson (Pitch 1) at JL Murphy Reserve, Community Synthetic Ground (Pitch 3) at JL Murphy Reserve and North Port Oval are proposed to be dog prohibited areas, this would be offset by the following.
• Introducing fenced dog off-leash areas at three locations: Robinson Reserve in Elwood, Fennell Reserve in Port Melbourne and Howe Crescent Reserve West in South Melbourne.
• Update the summer times for dogs-off leash on the beach between Station Pier and Bay Street in Port Melbourne to 7.30pm - 10.00am.
• Change the summer times for dogs-off leash on the northern section of Elwood Beach between Point Ormond to the rock groyne in front of Elwood Angling Club, to 7.30pm – 10.00am.

Council officers will commence community engagement in early 2025 on the proposed changes to dog on and off-leash restrictions.

The Council has stated “there is no proposed reduction in dog off-leash spaces and that there is a proposed increase in times dogs can access beaches in Port Melbourne and Elwood.”

This was made public and published on CoPP website agenda papers on the 16 August 2024 prior to the Council meeting on 21 August 2024.

Finally, Council resolved to review the future use of Eastern Reserve North as a fenced dog off-leash area.  Following noise complaints from residents who live in close proximity to Eastern Reserve North, Council proposes to implement measures to mitigate these including:

• Programming the park lighting to be on from 7am until sunrise, and sunset until 7.30pm each day
• Trialling locking gates open between 7.30pm to 7am from 1 September 2024 to 31 March 2025; and   
• Prohibiting dog walking businesses from using the Reserve.

Council officers have been directed to improve education and enforcement and to make design enhancements to the Reserve.

Sign the petition - and let's KEEP the lobbyists away from the money pot

By Dean Hurlston

SIGN OUR KEEP RATE CAPPING PETITION TO PARLIAMENT IS HERE:

https://www.councilwatch.com.au/ratecaps

A few weeks ago, I gave evidence at the State Parliamentary Enquiry into Council funding. You can read more about it here: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/localgovernmentfunding

It is evident from the long list of Council "experts" that they cite Rate Capping as an existential threat to their empire building (using your money).

Rate capping is not perfect, but it is at least a restraint mechanism, that prevents Councils from living large on your hard-earned cash. We estimate, without rate capping, Council rates would increase by up to 20% a year.

Here are what the "other experts who gave evidence" receive in funding from the sector - from Council rates/income that you and I pay. (Figures quoted from annual reports)

• Municipal Association of Victoria - $17.5 Million in funding annually
• LGPRO - with 65 corporate partnerships, they claim $3.7 Million in funding annually
• VLGA - $1.5 Million in income annually
• FinPro - for CEO's only, $618K annually

Of course, some of the income comes from sponsorships, but the majority is coming from Council coffers, which means we are paying for them to professionally lobby government to increase rates.

In a sector with $14 Billion revenue in Victoria, it is small change, but it is significant.

$23 Million is a lot of money. A lot.

In a cost-of-living crisis, every dollar must be scrutinised.

As the ONLY witness to oppose the removal/relaxing of rate-capping, we have also been attacked by Labor and the Greens (more on that later), as a distraction.

We have been accused of having a conflict of interest, predominantly for 2 reasons:

The president has a partner who is a mayor (we didn't know that was a crime).

Some of your comments on our social media appear to have hurt Councillors and the Minister for Local Governments feelings, and they are not happy about it.

But let's focus on those other witnesses.

These organisations are simply well-PAID Lobbyists, using your money to pay for their lobbying empires, that claim to be experts, "who need more rates".

These "experts" are actually nothing more than paid lobbyists, seeking to increase the burden on households. There was little to no talk about the actual cost of living crisis facing the people, and just a lot of complaining about how constrained council finances are, under rate capping.

So, you will forgive me if I pause here and say this - what FREAKING HYPOCRITES this industry is. The witnesses at the State Parliamentary enquiry are those who GRIFT and SUCK money off you and I via our Councils, to run their own little empires - to the tune of at least $23 Million bucks a year.

Sorry but I say THEY HAVE A DEEP CONFLICT OF INTEREST in the request to remove or amend rate capping and increase council funding, so they can get their hands on more of your money.

I hope every follower, MP, and Councillor reads this and thinks about it for just a minute. Why are we letting these lobbyists act as "expert witnesses"?

These organisations are siphoning millions off Council incomes, and they want more.  These are the same organisations who seek legal advice at your expense and advise Councils to refuse to comply with the Minister's directives.

Yes, the Lobbyists have control of the industry acting as "experts".

You see many things done and provided by Councils are NOT a legislative requirement.

We could probably shed 25% of the bureaucracy tomorrow (not customer and service delivery staff) and we would not notice, but that does not suit their "conflicted agendas".

Why do Councils, who cannot fathom how to deliver great service, need so many support organisations who essentially just LOBBY for them and seek more, more, more, more money?

Because they are obsessed with your wallet and know that the $14 Billion is easy to grift from.

Of course, we accept that industries need peak bodies, but when all those peak bodies are giving evidence at a Parliamentary enquiry, under parliamentary privilege, one wonders what their AGENDA really is. These organisations are Lobbyists, and the Parliament is allowing lobbyists (who profit from council incomes) to ask to remove rate capping, allow it to be more easily worked around, or given any manner of income increases possible.

We NEED rate capping no matter what, and I need you to sign our petition and share it with anyone you can, PLEASE I mean anyone.

We need to show the Parliamentary enquiry that Victorians NEED rate capping.

We fought long and hard to get it, and we must KEEP it.

Sign here: https://www.councilwatch.com.au/ratecaps

Unlike them, we do not take money from Councils, not that they would share it with us (lol).

So, if you like the work we do, feel free to support us, it will mean a lot. You can donate or join here:   https://www.councilwatch.com.au/shop

At the end of the day, the Legislative Council should actually reject much of the PAID lobbyist "expert evidence".

Rate caps have saved Victorians Millions in unfair rate increases. The process of setting them is absolutely FAIR, despite these lobbyists claims.

Source: https://www.councilwatch.com.au/post/rate-capping-must-remain-untouched-sign-the-petition-and-let-s-keep-the-lobbyists-away-from-the

By Campbell Spence, President of Residents of Port Phillip, Inc.  

An anonymous group are distributing information that falsely imputes that some ‘Councillors are for sale’. Make no mistake, this is a nasty political hit job to stop the election of truly independent Councillors who are a threat to the political parties.

The flyer regurgitates unsubstantiated claims first published in The Age on 2 July in relation to fundraising activities by the Residents of Port Phillip. 

These claims are disingenuous because political parties raise money for election campaigns through memberships and selling tickets for dinners and events where donors have access to Councillors and Members of Parliament. Our fundraising is no different to the political parties.

Residents of Port Phillip are not selling access to Cr Clark and Cr Sirakoff who are RoPP endorsed Councillors and have always acted with the highest integrity. Any resident can contact them at any time via telephone, email or meetings without being a donor.

Cr Clark and Cr Sirakoff have worked tirelessly for residents by advocating for

1. Rates freeze to be delivered through efficiencies without cutting services. 
2. Removal of the unnecessary and dangerous pop-up bike lanes. 
3. Stopping the removal of car lanes on Kerferd Road.
4. Stopping the removal of 114 car parks in Inkerman Street
5. Stopping the building of public toilets near the entrance of St Kilda Park Primary. 
6. Appropriate location of seating on Fitzroy Street. 
7. Opposing inappropriate developments. 

We have proudly supported residents on many matters over the past four years without any expectation of a donation and anyone is welcome to attend our community meetings. We proudly offer donors access to discounts at more than 120 retailers which can save up to $1,000 per year in this cost-of-living crisis. 

Recently Nina Taylor, Member for Albert Park hosted a $990 per person dinner where constituents had access to the MP and Deputy Premier. Councillor Tim Baxter hosted a fundraising dinner to fund his campaign in the Council elections. Are these politicians for sale? 

Residents of Port Phillip are seeking donations to fund the election of competent, independent candidates who will put residents first ahead of political agendas and vested interests.   

Finally, we are willing to discuss this matter further and meet any residents to discuss. Email us at mail@ropp.org.au or call Campbell on 0414386198. 

By Campbell Spence

Angry residents have lodged an objection to the Victorian Civil and Arbitration Tribunal opposing the development of a 200-person swingers club at 427 City Road in South Melbourne.

A 200-person swingers club was granted a planning permit by the Port Phillip Council to operate between 10am and 2am. The "sex on premises" venue is planned to open in November at a vacant two storey property (pictured above) as an adults only venue, complete with a bar and live music.

Pineapples Lifestyle Bar is described as a “purpose-built adult playground" where customers can enjoy private and public rooms. The venue is also being promoted for "content creation” at a discounted rate during the day.

Despite more than 30 business owners and residents objecting to the location of the swingers club near residential properties, a school, park and a church, the majority of Councillors voted to grant a permit:

For:                     Cr Crawford, Baxter, Bond, Martin, Nyaguy,

Against:               Cr Cunsolo, Pearl and Sirakoff

Cr Crawford, Deputy Mayor justified her support for granting the permit by referring to the zoning of the area as “industrial”. But this zoning is out-of-date and ignores the fact the area contains mainly professional commercial and retail businesses and is also expected to be re-zoned in the very near future and possibly as “mixed use”.

The amenity of residents and business owners is likely to be impacted by patrons looking for already limited car parking as well as vehicle and patron noise late at night.

Tony Baenziger, owner of nearby architecture firm Baenziger Coles, said he feared the development could have a "detrimental effect" on South Melbourne, where there were already several brothels and adult entertainment venues.

“We're already becoming a bit of an epicentre of sexually orientated businesses" he said. “This is a commercial business area with existing residences and apartments, several primary schools, a church, a community centre and a park nearby. I don’t have a problem with that type of business per se but is needs to be located in an appropriate location and not near residences.” 

“I don’t think the proprietors would like it if a swingers club opened next to their own homes”.

Yasmine Wallace, a resident who lives close to the planned swingers club and existing massage parlours, said “I have never felt more unsafe. I have been the frequent target of unprovoked sexist and racist attacks, culminating in myself needing to seek help from strangers to keep safe”.

“City Road has become more and more dangerous, my 10-year-old daughter and I were recently witnesses to a security guard being bashed at Woolworths. I am speaking out, because I want my daughter to grow up in a safe and liveable city.”

Yasmine noted that “the owners want to turn this area into a tourism hot spot. I am concerned that this will attract even more dangerous people, who could turn aggressive against the local community. My family and I live only 49 meters away, and don’t have the luxury of saying she’ll be right because, honestly, we don’t believe it will be.”

Locals have lodged an appeal against Council’s decision to issue a permit with VCAT and have launched a petition to gain community support and to inform the public and have also opened a GoFundMe page to help fund the legal fight.

https://www.change.org/notoswingersclub

https://www.gofundme.com/f/notoswingersclub

By Campbell Spence

Residents of Port Phillip have updated the rates calculator for 2024-25. Go to https://ropp.org.au/property-rates-calculator/  to compare your rates to our three neighbouring Councils.

The chart below using an example of a $1.9m property shows that the City of Port Phillip's rates (as a percentage) remain persistently high in comparison to neighbouring Councils. This is despite the Residents of Port Phillip endorsed Councillors,  Rhonda Clark and Christina Sirakoff working tirelessly to try to bring our rates and charges down to be more in line with our neighbours. There are obviously Councillors, Council Officers and other groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

It is clear that the only way to bring about significant change is to elect independent Councillors who will put the needs of all of us ahead of party politics and those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Have you ever considered running for Council? Council elections are coming up in October 2024. Join our wonder team of independent candidates who are endorsed by the Residents of Port Phillip, Inc. It's confidential and we can help with training and resources.

Register you interest here mail@ropp.org.au

Residents of Port Phillip are a non-political, local community group supporting independent candidates who will advocate for residents and stop political parties and minority groups taking over our Council.

For more information about Residents of Port Phillip visit https://ropp.org.au

Council amended a flawed seating proposal for Fitzroy Street following feedback from business owners and residents and advice from St Kilda Police. The Victoria Police Inspector Brett Coloe, of St Kilda, has advised “Victoria Police is supportive of public seating to cater for the diverse needs of the community in public spaces. (However) I oppose on behalf of Police, the installation of new seating infrastructure specifically outside 77 Fitzroy Street and at 121/123 Fitzroy Street, St Kilda.”

The original motion put up by one of the Councillors to place seating near two well-known hotspots for antisocial behaviour was not supported by the Police advice. The proposed installation of one seat outside the pharmacy at 77 Fitzroy Street and one seat outside the convenience store at 121/123 Fitzroy Street, was in direct contradiction to the advice requested from Police, in the City of Port Phillip.

Importantly, Councillors Clark, Cunsolo, Martin, Pearl and Sirakoff voted in favour of amending the motion to relocate seating away from the hotspots, however the amendments were not initially supported by Councillors Bond, Baxter, Crawford and Nyaguy.  

How could any potential candidate in the upcoming Council elections be seen to publicly vote against the advice of the Victoria Police, including most Fitzroy Street Traders, the LGBTIQ+ community and the residents? Thank you to those Councillors who listened to and accepted community feedback.

However, when the substantive motion which incorporated the amendments was then put to the vote, surprisingly Councillors voted unanimously for the amended proposal.

Council heard several business owners including the owner of Blu Oyster speak and the CareMore Pharmacy against the motion at the Council meeting on 17 July, consistent with many Fitzroy Street traders who did not want seating in the hot-spot zones near the convenience store. Surprisingly there was no representative from the Fitzroy Traders Association who originally stated that the traders were in favour of the seating.

A petition with 206 signatures was also presented to the Council objecting to the new seating in Fitzroy Street. The presenter of the petition spoke alarmingly that Council would even think of considering seating anywhere near the Pride Centre which was fast becoming a platform for homophobic attacks on patrons to the Centre.

This was confirmed by the LGBTIQ+ community and staff at the Victorian Pride Centre who privately expressed their concerns about the proposed seating in the hotspot areas because many of their community “are subject to homophobic slurs and threatening abuse when they transit from Star Health in the Victorian Pride Centre to the adjacent CareMore Pharmacy for their Prep medication”.

An exasperated Pride Centre Volunteer said “that two staff have recently resigned at VPC, due to safety concerns, and clients are now choosing to go to Prahran and not the VPC due to the behaviours on the corner of Jackson Street and outside the VPC and adjacent chemist”.

A concerned St Kilda resident said “that are not in favour of installing seats in the hotspot locations because the seating attracts gatherings of large groups of people with complex needs including substance abuse and mental health issues who should be receiving care from housing and medical agencies”.

The police advised a group of residents that they already have scarce resources in Port Phillip and if seating was installed in the ‘hotspots’, then additional police resources would be required to manage antisocial behaviours that are commonly seen in these areas.

Elderly residents who have transferred their PO boxes from Shakespeare Grove Post Office to Fitzroy St Post Office, now refuse to use the PO boxes in this location due to dangerous behaviours, they are too scared to walk up Fitzroy Street.

A St Kilda resident said “One seat becomes a magnet for an encampment and gatherings, one rough sleeper leads to another, followed by a dealer, followed by further transients with trolleys and bedding, leading to the full encampment, at the honey pot seat”.

By Dean Hurlston

Citizens' Panels (also known as Citizen Juries) are a dud: they use flawed methodology to misrepresent, skew, and "steer" Council priorities and funding into majorly social causes, likely reducing funding to already dwindling core Council services.

Citizens' Panels comprise of around 40-50 locals. They are touted as the "most representative model of community engagement" by most Councils.

They are, effectively, facilitated workshops over a set period of time to discuss a range of things, most often strategy and policy design. Most Councils are using them or have used them to help make recommendations and decide Council pillars of focus.

We decided to look into them a bit further.

Many Councils use Panels and Juries to develop their Strategic 4-year council plans, the MAIN governing document of the Council.

A Council plan is the key document that decides the Councils' (post-election) priorities, where resources are allocated, what the organisation will focus on, and ultimately what Councillors will "deliver". Essentially the plan is what motions, agenda items, decisions, etc. are all based around. The plan is KEY PRINCIPLES, KEY STATEMENTS and/or KEY FOCUS POINTS. Some examples include:

• https://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/about/corporate-documents/council-plan/future-stonnington.pdf
• council-plan-final.pdf (monash.vic.gov.au)
• https://www.knox.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-10/council-plan-2021-2025.pdf
• https://www.cardinia.vic.gov.au/download/downloads/id/4035/council_plan_2021%E2%80%9325_incorporating_the_community_vision_2040.pdf

You can find your own easily with a simple internet search.

Critically, these 40-50 people comprising the Citizens' Panel should, under all circumstances, be selected as fairly as possible, to represent the Community at large. In practice, however, they are not -- they are chosen following specific demographic requirements from Council officers, which reflect their own biases and agendas, all under the guise of "fairness" and "representation". Council Watch has completed an initial investigation into one of the main methods of choosing the people for the Citizens' Panels and found:

Due to their average sizes, Panels do not accurately represent their communities despite their claims.

• They are not randomly selected in their "random" lottery processes, and demographics or key "attributes" play a central role in who gets selected.
• They amplify minority voices at the expense of the wider community, reflecting the biases of Council officers.
• They skew community engagement groups.
• They deny participation from many in the community who are locked out.
• They produce community representatives with bias.
• They are a tool to direct funds and skew policy towards more "social causes".

Right now, many Councils in Victoria are using Citizens' Panels. The findings of these panels are treated by staff as "gospel" and, often, as irrefutable evidence of the community position. What a salacious claim. Many Councillors are swallowing the narrative, all while good Councillors are asking the hard questions and not relying on what panels deliver as "undeniable fact or evidence".

Citizens' Panels, their methodology, algorithms, and their skewed lotteries are nothing more than a well organised and glossy subversion of democracy. Rather than someone's ability to participate and vote on a matter concerning their community, people are chosen based on demographic characteristics or key attributes, such as "LGBTQIA+ status, Gender identity, Sexuality, Indigeneity, etc.", that neatly map into Councils' biases on what groups should be represented.

They also reflect a corporate laziness amongst many Council officers.

Good Community consultation does the following:

• It clearly explains the problems to solve.
• It draws many people in to have their say.
• It validates all views.
• It passes no judgement.
• It works through solutions.
• It provides the best solutions agreed upon.
• It gains Community ownership from design.

Citizens' Juries have been exposed. Our investigation has shown these "juries" simply undermine the role of the elected Councillor/decision maker, which is to represent the whole community rather than those who Council officers deem important based on their demographic or identifiable "attributes" (we call them labels).

One such organisation that is well used here is Sortition Foundation:

https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/

https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/what

https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/why

And since Sortition is widely used, it served as starting point of our initial investigation. Importantly, there are two main points where Citizens' Juries and Panels fall short. 

The first one is in their alleged random selection. The selection is not random at all -- at least not in the way that the Community at large is expecting. We have seen at the City of Yarra -- they randomly selected 40 community members via a supposed lottery, but they then hand-selected 15 indigenous people to ensure over representation. In the City of Yarra, the indigenous population is about 1.1%. That would be 1 person MAX in representation on a panel of 50. Instead with 15 "appointed" we have a 30% representation, more than 30 times the real representation of said demographic group. (https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/australia_update)

The second point in which Juries and Panels fall short is in their representation of the community at large. To achieve appropriate representation of a community of 90,000 residents or more with an acceptable rate of error (5% or less) and confidence in the data captured (95% or more). Around 50 people for a Panel representing a Community of 90,000 leaves you with error rates of around 14%.

The City of Yarra's budget is $246 Million this coming year, over the next Council term, Councillors will spend over $1 Billion of public money. Because they used a Panel that is not representative of the Community -  their MAIN governing document is FATALLY FLAWED.

We have found similar major anomalies in the following council plan development processes, that we have reviewed:

Borough of Queenscliffe, Wyndham City Council, Bayside City Council, City of Ballarat, 

City of Melton, City of Whitehorse, City of Kingston, Merr-ibek City Council, Baw Baw Shire, City of Whittlesea, Greater Dandenong Council, Surf Coast Shire, Stonnington City Council, Yarra Ranges Shire, Mornington Peninsula Shire. (we are sure there are many more).

How Skewing Works.

This is from the Yarra Ranges Shire. You can see the panel TARGET make up of council Vs the actual census demographic data. 

You will see that the SKEWING of representation demonstrates - double LGBTQIA representation, 12 times First Nations representation, much higher rates of disability and carer representation, Women at much LOWER representation, whilst Non-Binary and Non-Gendered are at extraordinary levels of over representation. Do you see how this plays out in WHAT the council's action plans will be focused on? I do. This means a manufactured data set that is NOT at all representative of the actual community.

Councillors across the sector cannot have any rational acceptance or confidence in the use of Citizens' Panels, Juries and Lotteries.

The community can also have no confidence in Citizens' panels or juries and their integrity.

Our recommendations:

Based on our research, we recommend that:

1. Councils cease using Citizens' Panels or Juries in decision-making processes as they are mostly inaccurate and non-representative from a sampling perspective.
2. Councils ensure that adequate sample sizes are used to validate any findings or recommendations, based specifically on the size of the municipality population data and a much lower margin of error (recommended 5% or lower)
3. Councils do not allow staff to select consultation participants.
4. Councils allow any and all participants who want to be involved in Community Consultation to do so.
5. Councils extend or conduct additional consultation if the initial consultation is insufficient.
6. Councillors have much more prescriptive involvement in the design of community consultation processes, especially the questions asked of the community.
7. Councillors are involved (where possible) in the design of the questions and the approval of processes.
8. Council Community Consultation Policies are overhauled to reflect these recommendations. 

Look into how your council is forming their 4-year strategic plan NOW; it is what drives how your money is spent, and it explains HOW you might just feel that their priorities are somehow not yours!

Now we know how Billions of dollars every year are being directed, and some of it appropriated to causes you did NOT sign up for.

We must END this GAMING of the system that is Local Councils. Let's get back to doing what matters - delivering SERVICES not social policy.

Attribution: Reproduced with permission from Council Watch

• If you are a non-residential ratepayer who wants to enrol to have your say, click on the below appropriate categories:
• Owner ratepayers - own property and pay rates in the council area:
• https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/.../enrolling-for-local...
• Occupier ratepayer - pay rates for a property that you occupy but do not own:
• https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/.../enrolling-for-local...
• Represent a corporation - are a director or company secretary of a corporation that pays rates (either as an owner or an occupier) in the council area:
• https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/.../enrolling-for-local...

Invitation to Community Meeting – Alma Ward

Residents of Port Phillip are pleased to invite you to attend our Community Meeting to discuss your expectations of the Port Phillip Council and how you can improve Council services for Alma Ward. 

Time:            7:30 - 8:30 pm                                                                                                           

Date:             Monday 29th of July 2024

Venue:            The Inkerman Hotel (Function Room)

     375 Inkerman St, St Kilda East VIC 3183

Agenda

1. Welcome and agenda 
2. What do residents want from Port Phillip Council?
3. Cr Sirakoff and Cr Clark  - Successes and challenges
4. Introduction to RoPP Candidate for Alma Ward 
5. Request for RoPP support and helpers

You must pre-register as attendee numbers are limited. RSVP by Sunday 28^th July by registering at mail@ropp.org.au

Who are the Residents of Port Phillip (RoPP) ? 

• RoPP believes Port Phillip is better served by independent Councillors who put our community first.
• RoPP is a grassroots community association that advocates on behalf of residents and business owners for sensible decisions, responsible spending and lower rates and charges. See https://ropp.org.au

By Rod Mitchell

Many residents of the CoPP are increasingly frustrated at the decision making in Council which often appears to ignore resident and trader’s concerns, due process and verifiable consultation. Recently it has come to light that Council is about to install seating along Fitzroy Street.

While this on the surface appears innocuous, deeper analysis suggests that the whole matter requires a halt to the project while the CoPP engages in proper consultation and not treat decision making as fait accompli.

The issues can be summarised as follows.

It is no secret that Fitzroy Street is currently problematic with empty shops and a contingent of people gathered on the street, many who are known to locals for their abusive and antisocial behaviours. For Fitzroy St, the first duty of Council is to build confidence by shifting this element off our main retail strips.

The poor economic climate combined with the current atmosphere in Fitzroy Street means that economic prosperity cannot return while the status quo remains. Who other than the rough sleepers will use the proposed seating?

Families with children or the aged, tend to avoid this retail precinct because they feel unsafe. Without prosperity on our retail strips, the general community also suffers including rate collections to Council. We all lose if business cannot thrive.

One particular site for the seating is near the Pride Centre. Over $17 million of public monies was spent on this building as an important infrastructure recognising the LGBTIQ+ community. Currently there is a group of people that gather or “camp” near there shouting homophobic slurs and other things to patrons going to and from the Pride Centre. Adding seating to this area will only give the same group a place to sit while they continue with their unpleasant rants. Is this what we want for Fitzroy Street?

Recently it was also learned that a number of nursing staff who work inside the Pride Centre are considering or have left due to the poisonous atmosphere on Fitzroy Street. Once again, why would anyone want to encourage more of this street behaviour through putting in seating so close to the Centre?

The message to Council is clear, clean up the street gatherings in our retail strips and create the confidence for businesses to reopen and thrive. Once you have achieved that basic goal, then consider seating. Until then, you will only make things worse, if it can get any worse!

I encourage you to sign my petition  https://chng.it/GVrGYKNtVg

By Rod Mitchell

I encourage you to sign my petition  https://chng.it/GVrGYKNtVg

To the Mayor and Councillors of the Port Phillip City Council

We the following Petitioners hereby request that the City of Port Phillip,

We the undersigned ask that you cease the proposed installation of seating along the known trouble plagued hotspot areas of Fitzroy St, St Kilda.

By Campbell Spence

On Wednesday 26 June 2024, Port Phillip Councillors voted against the interests of residents by supporting the bureaucrat’s recommendation to increase rates by 2.75%. 

Voted For:           Cr Baxter, Bond, Cunsolo, Crawford, and Martin 

Voted Against:      Cr Clark, Pearl and Sirakoff

In March, Cr Rhonda Clark and Cr Christina Sirakoff put up a motion to freeze rates for the upcoming financial year while ensuring the preservation of essential services' quality and accessibility. 

A rates freeze would have required the CEO to find 1.6% of cost savings and efficiencies in approximately $223 million of expenditure. A task the CEO said was not feasible. 

Regrettably, only three of the nine Councillors supported the rates freeze, thwarting hopes for immediate financial relief amidst the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. 

At the same meeting, Council voted to introduce significant financial penalties for owners of vacant and derelict shops and land, in a misguided attempt to force owners to find tenants for vacant shops and to construct buildings on vacant land. 

Rates for derelict land and unactivated retail land will be charged at 400% and vacant land will be charged at 300% of the residential rate. The measure applies to about 70 properties and does not raise additional revenue. 

Most residents would agree that Council must do more to revitalise our once vibrant and iconic high streets, but others are questioning the merit of introducing punitive and higher differential rates for vacant and derelict buildings and land. 

Council Watch president Dean Hurlston said the City of Port Phillip was taking an “anti-business” approach to the problem of vacant properties and shops. “It’s using a blunt instrument, designed to penalise those already struggling with high costs of goods and high wages growth,” Hurlston said. 

One councillor justified these anti-business measures based on a Have Your Say survey that suggested that more than 70% of responders were in favour of increased rates for vacant land, derelict land and inactivated retail property. 

Residents of Port Phillip, Inc have been advocating for a rates freeze for five years because Port Phillip rates are excessive compared with neighbouring councils - see  https://ropp.org.au/property-rates-calculator/

A resident of Port Melbourne lamented “the Council's failure to prioritize the community's interests, condemning the pervasive financial hardships inflicted by escalating living costs, inflation, and interest rate fluctuations. The plight faced by families, individuals, renters, ratepayers, and business owners underscores the pressing need for a rates freeze for all residents”.

Invitation to Community Meeting – Lakeside Ward

Residents of Port Phillip are pleased to invite you to attend our Community Meeting to discuss your expectations of the Port Phillip Council and how you can improve Council services for Lakeside Ward (see electoral map on next page)

Time:            7:30 - 8:30 pm

Date:             Monday 15^th July 2024

Venue:            The Green Room, Ground Floor, Queens Domain Bldg,12 Queens Lane

Agenda:

1. Welcome and agenda 
2. What do residents want from Port Phillip Council?
3. Cr Sirakoff and Cr Clark  - Successes and Challenges
4. Introduction to RoPP Candidate for Lakeside 
5. Request for RoPP support and helpers

You must pre-register as attendee numbers are limited. RSVP by Friday 12th July by registering at mail@ropp.org.au.

Who are the Residents of Port Phillip (RoPP) ? 

• RoPP believes Port Phillip is better served by independent Councillors who put our community first.
• RoPP is a grassroots community association that advocates on behalf of residents and business owners for sensible decisions, responsible spending and lower rates and charges. See https://ropp.org.au

Invitation to Community Meeting – South Melbourne Ward

Residents of Port Phillip are pleased to invite you to attend our Community Meeting to discuss your expectations of the Port Phillip Council and how you can improve Council services for South Melbourne Ward. 

Time:            7:30 - 8:30 pm                                                                                                           

Date:             Monday 22^nd July 2024

Venue:        Venue:          Rising Sun Hotel (Upstairs) 2 Raglan St, South Melbourne 

Agenda

1. Welcome and agenda 
2. What do residents want from Port Phillip Council?
3. Cr Sirakoff and Cr Clark  - Successes and Challenges
4. Introduction to RoPP Candidate for South Melbourne 
5. Request for RoPP support and helpers

You must pre-register as attendee numbers are limited. RSVP by Friday 19^th July by registering at mail@ropp.org.au.

Who are the Residents of Port Phillip (RoPP) ? 

• RoPP believes Port Phillip is better served by independent Councillors who put our community first.
• RoPP is a grassroots community association that advocates on behalf of residents and business owners for sensible decisions, responsible spending and lower rates and charges. See https://ropp.org.au

By Andy Jacobs

Exposing the Underbelly of Civic Neglect and Disillusionment

In an audacious revelation, the Customer Satisfaction Survey of Port Phillip Council https://ropp.org.au/latest-news/ , meticulously conducted by independent analysts, has laid bare a startling and profound level of dissatisfaction, mistrust, and disengagement among its residents. 

This survey, comprehensive in its scope, paints a distressing picture of a council that appears to have not just lost touch with its community, but is potentially operating in stark opposition to its needs and expectations. 

A Litany of Failures – The Quantitative Indictment

The survey's quantitative data are a damning testament to the council's performance. Trust, a cornerstone of any functional civic relationship, is at a nadir, with residents rating their confidence in the council at an average of 1.86 out of 5. This isn't just poor – it's a crisis of faith. Equally concerning is the perceived value for money, scraping the bottom at 1.84. This isn't just about numbers; it's about a palpable sense of betrayal and disappointment.

Perhaps most damning is the average score of 3.29 on the likelihood of recommending the council to others. This tepid endorsement reflects more than dissatisfaction; it speaks to a community that feels let down, a community hesitant to associate itself with the very body meant to champion its cause. 

One respondent's words are particularly telling: "Why would I recommend a council that seems to forget its basic duties?”

Voices from the Ground – A Tapestry of Discontent

Moving beyond the starkness of numbers, the open-ended responses in the survey provide a more nuanced, yet equally troubling narrative. While a minority of respondents pointed out positives like "efficient front-line service staff," the overarching theme was one of disillusionment.

Residents' comments provide a scathing critique: "poor delivery of services and projects," "disregard for ratepayers' interests," and "a troubling sense of disconnection with community needs." These aren't minor quibbles; they're a significant outcry against a council that seems to have forgotten its primary purpose – to serve its community. The qualitative responses in the survey offer a more personalized, albeit equally damning narrative. While some respondents acknowledged strengths such as "efficient front-line service staff," the overarching theme is one of bitter disappointment.

Other comments lay bare to the deeply unsatisfied sentiment "The council's delivery of services and projects is abysmally poor," and "There's a blatant disregard for ratepayers' interests." These aren't mere expressions of dissatisfaction; they represent a profound outcry against a council perceived as neglectful of its foundational purpose.

The Road Ahead – A Council at the Precipice

This brings us to the crux of the matter. The Port Phillip Council stands at a critical crossroads. The survey results aren't just a warning; they're a deafening alarm for urgent and substantive change. The council is now compelled to listen to these voices of frustration and despair and embark on a journey of rigorous self-examination and transformative action.

For the residents of Port Phillip, this survey transcends mere data collection. It's a reflection of their daily experiences – experiences marred by frustration, disappointment, and a longing for a council that resonates with their needs and aspirations. The council's response to this crisis will not only define its future but also the very essence of its relationship with the community it serves.

As one respondent poignantly put it, "We're not just numbers; we're people looking for a council that genuinely cares.”

A Choice to be Made – Acknowledge and Act or Perpetuate Discontent

The choice before the Port Phillip Council is stark. It can either acknowledge these glaring shortcomings and take decisive steps to address them or continue on a trajectory that risks deepening the chasm between it and its constituents. The path forward is challenging, but the message from the community is unequivocal – change is not just necessary; it is imperative. 

The council's actions in the coming days will be closely watched, not just by its residents but by all those who believe in the power and responsibility of local government to genuinely serve and uplift its people. The time for action is now; the community deserves no less.

This week Council voted to pay Citywide an undisclosed amount to settle a dispute over the contract price with the Council to provide waste collection services. Council documents revealed that Citywide had underpriced their services because the City of Port Phillip had not provided maps of properties requiring kerbside waste collection or sufficient information about the number of properties requiring these services.

Two independent audits of the procurement process to appoint a new contractor and the subsequent transition to Citywide found failures in operational processes and failures of governance. The audit reports cost $225,000 and another $136,000 was spent on waste collection. 

Mayor Cunsolo on behalf of the CoPP has apologised for these failures but no individuals have been held accountable when other Councils are able to seamlessly transition to new contractors.

I believe ratepayers have a right to know how much the failure of governance and operational processes have cost us. When I asked Councillors at the Council Meeting why they had chosen to keep the settlement amount confidential, I was told that revealing the settlement payment would jeopardise price competition when waste services are re-tendered in early 2025.

It is difficult to understand why the settlement sum should be confidential when the contract amount for waste collection services is disclosed in the Council's budget. A officer confirmed that the settlement sum will be incorporated in the budget plus 2.75%. Incidentally, contracted waste services cost $14.4 million in the budget. 

The settlement payment to Citywide does not need to be confidential because the amount does not allow other contractors to estimate the original contract price. Presumably other contractors would be paid the same amount if they were seeking a settlement for failure of the City of Port Phillip to share maps and other important information.

In response to a question from Cr Pearl, an Officer advised "the settlement agreement does not prevent the Council from disclosing the cost". 

The Management Action Plan indicates many of the Council’s processes were clearly inadequate to manage any procurement process and project plan.

Residents have a right to know what the Council’s incompetence has cost. I suspect that the amount has been kept confidential to avoid further embarrassment and protect those responsible. .

Finally, I asked why nobody has been held accountable? I did not receive a response from the Mayor or officers. It seems that public servants are not held to the same level of accountability as managers in the private sector. 

In the words of Shrek "well I have to save my ass".

By James Radalj

Image of vandalised Macnamara electorate MP’s office.

In a disturbing turn of events, the St Kilda office of Macnamara electorate and Member of Parliament (MP) Josh Burns, was targeted in what appears to be a deliberate act of vandalism and aggression. The incident  which occurred overnight, has sent shockwaves through the community and raises more questions about the state of public discourse and safety in the City of Port Phillip.

Offenders vandalising the office with red paint, smashing windows and setting fire to the telecommunications pits just adjacent to the property.

The attack on his office, widely believed to be linked to the local MP's cultural and political affiliations, underscores broader concerns about intolerance and division within society. This type of attack erodes the core of our Australian, and in particular, the Melbournian multicultural and accepting society.

The implications of such criminal acts extend beyond mere property damage. They strain emergency services, burden the courts, and instill fear in the community at large.

Is it worth I ask? The consequences ripple through law enforcement efforts, diverting resources that could otherwise be allocated to maintaining public safety and addressing urgent community needs such as the ever-growing domestic violence or retail assaults that plague our screens.

At a time when we are battling cost-of-living pressures, police shortages, increased crime and safety concerns, and higher mortgage rates, such avoidable and contemptible behaviour is not needed. There is no time to endorse such abhorrent actions.

Victoria Police is currently grappling with significant challenges from personnel shortages and diminishing public confidence. Unnecessary and avoidable matters like this further strain the dedicated men and women of our police force who work hard to maintain calm on our streets.

We live in a democratic society that enables free speech, encourages robust discussion, and tolerates differences of opinion, but not in this way. It is absolutely not okay to escalate hate, damage property, and create fear in our community.

By Rod Mitchell 

In September last year, the Council, with much fanfare, announced that they were looking to build a 5,000-seating music venue on the St Kilda Triangle site. Pop up lighting costing over $50,000 was installed in Acland Street for a few months reminding all of us, that St Kilda was once a centre of cutting-edge music. As a former Goanna band “groupie”, I can contest to those great times. Yes, the 80's was a great time for music in St Kilda, but like all things, it came to an end.

The idea that we can “remake” St Kilda as the pivot of Victoria’s music scene is a bit like the MAGA philosophy. Making St Kilda Great Again asks more questions than it answers. Was the past music scene, the core of what made St Kilda such a go to destination or was it much more back then; the vibrant retail strips and a far gentler eclectic crowd than what our high streets offer today? Will a revitalised music scene create more social issues for St Kilda residents and what if any impact will it have on our struggling retail precincts? Where is the master plan for all of this in the rush to be seen to be doing something?

The underlying problem with the proposed music venue on the St Kilda Triangle site is not just resting on blind faith that the CoPP has the competencies and skill sets to deliver on such a proposal. It goes far deeper, to process, public support, funding mechanisms and financial viability.

Process: 

Public Support: 

• Older residents are not as agile at using online portals to voice their support or concerns as younger tech oriented residents.
• Ratepayers who inevitably are “liable” to foot the bill for these projects tend to be outweighed by non-ratepayers (renters) who are usually, in favour of these “no cost to them” types of venues. 
• Rate payers in other areas of Port Philip may not want the project because it does not directly support where they live.
• Business houses and residents closer to the live music venue who may see this activity as either disrupting their businesses or the loss of amenity viewed by nearby residents. Think restaurants along the foreshore and residents along the St Kilda Esplanade.
• And finally, a lot of non-residents using the online portals to voice their views in the positive, irrespective of the fact they do not live in the City of Port Phillip.

 Funding:

Financial Viability:

And considering the plethora of negative news about the viability of live music venues in the media well before the CoPP announcement, surely this should have been considered before any public announcement and subsequent advertising expense undertaken by the CoPP?

And then we need to ask:

In summary:

The CoPP appears to have made a large news splash with self-promotion, supported by bullish statements from at least one Councillor, without the realism and detailed work to support such a music venue proposal. In my St Kilda Triangle article Iast November I stated:

“The latest Triangle redevelopment proposal appeared just over a year before the next Council elections got underway. The cynic could argue that this is the perfect election platform, “Vote us back to continue the redevelopment of the St Kilda triangle”. 

However, it looks like the music venue idea on the St Kilda triangle site is firming up as one former Councillor said some years back as “a place where ideas come to die.” 

Another former Councillor recently described it as a “Folly.”

In 2014 (yes 10 years ago), Councillor Bond slammed fellow councillors over delays and waste surrounding the development of the St Kilda Triangle. Maybe in 2024, Councillor Bond as a supporter of the current Triangle proposal, could tell us what it has now cost rate payers? If not, can someone else in Council please tell us how much the latest dip into the St Kilda Bermuda Triangle has cost the rate payers of Port Phillip?

And if the project is looking increasingly unfeasible, will someone in Council stand up and say so, or is the policy setting now, “say little and hopefully the punters will also”?

Both the State revenue office (SRO) and City of Port Phillip (CoPP) are proposing draconian new taxes to encourage the development of vacant land. The big problem is that it is a bad time to build a house, it has not been a good time since the start of Covid. We now have severe building labour shortages, resulting in delays and diminished quality. Labour, material and finance costs have also increased dramatically.

On top of this, the SRO are implementing a vacant unimproved land tax which will start January 2026 at 1% of value and increase to 3% by 2028. This brutal tax is certainly going to make owners think about selling or developing in this difficult market. 

As if this is not enough, the Council now decides to triple the rates, rubbing salt into the wound. The SRO gave a two-year grace period, from legislation to implementation in January 2026. Not so for the CoPP, there is no mention of any grace period to allow time to get permits, to build, or to sell up. If it is approved on the 26/6/2024, it looks as if they will start charging penalties 5 days later. 

If I find the extra penalties too much ($6K rates + $52K land tax) and sell, the new owner will get a 5 years' grace period from the land tax penalty. Surely the council should give a similar grace period to allow the new owner time to develop the property in a timely manner without being penalised. 

There has also been no mention as to when the penalty rates will stop being levied. Is it when the town planning process is started, completed, building permit granted or building works commenced.

From talking to councillors, the targets of penalty rates are larger, unsightly, poorly maintained properties in prominent positions. Small, well maintained, properties like mine are just collateral damage. Surely there are other ways to target the offensive properties without victimising innocent landowners. If this is not possible with existing laws, perhaps new ones could be created at state or Council level.

In my case, I submitted plans to town planning two weeks ago and paid the fee for a pre-application meeting. I am complying with the councils wishes. Am I still to pay penalty rates if they are adopted? Surely not! According to some councillors, I should be penalised while complying with council wishes, up until the time the building is completed, even though I started the process before owning vacant land had become a crime.

As an alternative to rate penalties, I put forward a win-win proposal to use vacant lots for community purpose, such as a community garden. Councillor Martin said he could think of a hand full of suitable properties including mine and would put forward this proposal at the council meeting next week.

It will be interesting to see how things play out at the Council meeting. Hopefully reason and fairness will prevail. 

If you have similar concerns, you can call me on 0411 397 111.

Brian (owner of 200 Nott St. Port Melbourne)

By Hans Schneider

Google Maps image of the Armstrong Street properties that are being redeveloped

While Campbell Spence sounds very positive in his report on the developments in the Middle Park shopping centre, I do not believe that the local community is supportive of it despite two positive citations.

Having lived in the area for over 30 years, I am concerned that we have lost a local news agency and a local restaurant, while we will gain a bottle shop. I believe it belongs to a chain of alcohol selling stores with another branch in South Melbourne.

There is already a hotel across the road and the additional bottle shop that is carefully rebranded as an “upscale wine store” will not add significant amenities to the community.

Please try to look behind the façade and evaluate the facilities that this development will bring to Middle Park Village. To me, it adds another step in the slow decline of our charming little shopping centre,

By Campbell Spence

Some groups in our community are claiming that rates in the City of Port Phillip (CoPP) are lower than neighbouring councils. Let’s fact check that, as it is important that you have the facts. The numbers below are based on 2019-20 Council budgets which are available in the public domain.

For the 2023-24 financial year, CoPP rates and charges continued to be much higher compared to Stonnington, Bayside and Glen Eira for a property of the same value. For example, the rates and charges for a house priced at $1.9M in CoPP are $3,483 which is $1,150 more than Stonnington, $1,000 more than Bayside and $580 more than Glen Eira.   See https://ropp.org.au/property-rates-calculator/

Firstly, let’s look at how much council collects in income. In 2019-20, CoPP collected $129 million in Rates and Charges, and $95 million in other charges such as fees, fines and grants. That’s much higher than neighbouring councils (See bar chart below: 2019-20 Total Income).

So, what is the reason for this? There are a few reasons why CoPP might need to collect higher rates, let’s look at each:

1. Coverage area and length of local roads
2. Population
3. Total number of properties

1. Coverage area

The larger a municipality is, the more money it needs spent on maintaining roads, footpaths, parks, streetlights, stormwater pipes etc. 

Does this explain the high rates?  No, it doesn’t. 

CoPP has the smallest area and the shortest length of roads, but the highest rates. 

CoPP spends more than double some neighbouring councils based on these metrics.

2. Population

Council services are most fairly compared based on population. This is because council provides services like libraries, parks, activity centres, childcare, customer service centres, parking permits etc. based on how many people they need to service. 

Does this explain the high rates? No, it doesn’t. 

CoPP has higher rates and charges per resident than neighbouring councils, and there is an interesting reason for that. 

CoPP employ more staff than neighbouring councils and pay their staff more than neighbouring councils. 

The cost to ratepayers was in that year, almost $100 million:

Each resident in the CoPP pays $873 for Council staff costs, whereas for the other three councils, the cost ranges from $450-592. (See figures above.)

The CoPP say that this is because they choose to provide services that others may not. And yes, one may agree to an extent. 

CoPP states that the extra staff they employ are for Council-run childcare centres, parking enforcement, for street / beach cleaning, and for teams to run South Melbourne Market and major festivals like St Kilda Festival. But even when these additional staff costs are removed, CoPP remains the most expensive council compared to its neighbours.
 

3. Total number of properties

For a minority of services, like collecting rubbish, the number of properties does influence cost. But in the CoPP, waste management only accounts for 5.3% of the total spend, according to the Essential Services Commission. 

Some groups interested in keeping rates high, have claimed that average rates per property should be used to compare the rates charged by different councils. Let’s look at why that is not a valid way to compare rates (and why those groups use this metric to not properly inform the public):

Reason 1 – CoPP has a higher number of residential properties

We know that most services Council provides depend on the number of people they provide services to and the infrastructure they service (see sections above).

Using the average to compare rates between councils is fundamentally flawed.

Average residential rates are calculated using two elements:

1. Total $ amount of residential rates charged
                  divided by
2. Number of residential properties.

So right away, we can see that a council with a higher number of residential properties will result in a lower average.

CoPP has a high number of residential properties. Or alternatively, you could say that there are less residents per property as shown in the diagram below labelled:
 “2019-20 Budget: Average number of residents per residential property”.

Whether residents live in large properties together, or in small properties alone, this doesn’t change the total amount of rates being charged by a council; it only changes the average rates per property. 

Average residents per residential property is used here to show that average rates per property is not a good metric. Average residents per property by itself is not meaningful. That’s why average rates per property is a poor measure of whether council rates are comparatively high or low. The fact is, that given we have so many residential properties in a small area, rates should be a whole lot lower. 

What then, is a fairer way to compare rates? 

This is simple: on a unitised basis i.e. per population.

Two examples of unitised data (data per resident) are

1. The chart above labelled: “2019-20 Budget Total residential rates and chargers per resident” 
2. The chart below labelled “Total Council expenditure per resident 2019-20 budget”

By unitising the data according to population size, both charts show CoPP has higher rates and chargers and expenditure per resident, whereas the average rates per residential property ignores the variables of different sized properties, different property values and different numbers of residents per property. By ignoring these variables, it means that the average rates per property is not a relevant metric when comparing councils.

We have a progressive rates system whereby the level of rates you pay is proportional to your property value. While there are many small apartments paying rates like neighbouring councils, the brunt of high rates is borne by those with higher property values, many of whom may not have the propensity to pay (the value of your property does not always indicate your income).

As stated earlier, the average residents per property by itself is meaningless. It is used here to show the statistical positive skew (see diagram below) and how averages work. The reason average rates in the CoPP are the same, or even slightly lower than neighbouring councils, is because of the positive skew in property values. 

CoPP has many apartments which are lower in value than the median (middlemost) property value. The diagram below is an example of a positive skew. This results in a statistical deception – the average (mean) rates per property does not reflect why rates are so expensive overall, especially for many ratepayers in the CoPP.

As stated above, average rates per property ignores the variables of different sized properties, different property values and different numbers of residents per property. By ignoring these variables, it means that the average rates per property is not a relevant metric when comparing councils.

Conclusion

The City of Port Phillip council has significantly higher rates than neighbouring councils based on all relevant metrics, except average rates per residential property, which is not useful in making comparisons between councils as proven above. 

Groups with vested interests will try to convince you that there is no problem with CoPP council rates. Hopefully this response explains why one shouldn’t believe such claims.

Four years later, since 2019-20, the population of CoPP has decreased from 110,624 to around 104,000 in 2024; and the total rates and charges have increased. So, it is very likely that the unitised costs have increased (for our Council total rates and charges costs per resident and total expenditure costs per resident), even if slightly offset by the introduction of the waste charge. See NOTE below.  The above still holds true and current average coparisons are still not suitable. 

The above analysis of financial metrics clearly shows that average rates data is false and misleading. Instead, rates data should be unitised for population differences. 

For the 2023-24 financial year, CoPP rates and charges continue to be much higher compared to Stonnington, Bayside and Glen Eira for a property of the same value. 
For example, the rates and charges for a house priced at $1.9M in Port Phillip are $3,483 which is $1,150 more than Stonnington, $1,000 more than Bayside and $580 more than Glen Eira.  See https://ropp.org.au/property-rates-calculator/

In the above example, the State Government factual valuation of a property is used to show the rates and charges for property of that value in CoPP, along with being higher than the neighbouring properties. Average rates per property will not provide this detail.

Disclaimer: 

All figures stated in this article are taken from the  2019-20 council budgets. Rates and Charges quoted include the fixed per property charges that almost all councils charge (75 of the 79 Victorian councils charge for waste services on a per property basis). NOTE: In 2022-23, the City of Port Phillip separated waste charges from rates revenue charges. 

Sources: 

https://www.propertyandlandtitles.vic.gov.au/valuation/council-valuations

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/ICP_2017-27_COUNCIL%20PLAN_year%203_Complete.pdf

https://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/council/item_10.2_-_attachment_2_-_annual_budget_2019_20.pdf

https://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/media/4649/2019-20-annual-budget.pdf

https://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/about/corporate-documents/budget/council-adopted-budget-2019-2020.pdf

https://haveyoursay.portphillip.vic.gov.au/budget-20202021/online-budget-session-4-may

By Rocco Sorace

Photo by Giorgia Maselli.

Roccoband launched with their first batch selling out in just five hours. Since then, the brand has continued to experience unprecedented demand.

“RoccoBands are stronger and better in quality than similar products on the market,” Rocco said.

Their non-slip “trademark design” means you can use them all year round, and because their design is so robust, they’re also incredibly eco-friendly, because they’re not going to wear out quickly.

“They’re also very hand-friendly as well, so anyone can use them – even my clients who have arthritis, and other joint problems.”

Rocco believes the key to RoccoBand's success is that they are “stronger and better in quality than similar products on the market.”

The biggest thing that makes them stand out from all the others on the market is that they’re much stronger and better in quality. They also have non-slip stitching, material, and hand grips, so you don’t need to worry about your resistance band slipping.

“You can use them all year round, and because their design is so robust, they’re also incredibly eco-friendly, because they’re not going to wear out quickly.

“They’re also very hand-friendly as well, so anyone can use them – even my clients who have arthritis, and other joint problems. More and more people are working out at home, so these bands really help them take their workouts to the next level,” Rocco said.

They can be used at the gym, at home, or outdoors for resistance, flexibility, strength, and personal training, body posture improvement, yoga, pilates, and weight loss.

For more information, please visit www.vitahealthandfitness.com

RoccoBands are sold as a 3 pack set, including 1 x 1.5 metre light fabric resistance band, 1 x 1.5 metre medium fabric resistance band, and 1 x non-slip medium strength fabric loop “booty” band. Every set also comes with a branded carry bag, and three downloadable resistance band workout programs by Rocco.

Pre order - launch special offer

https://vitahealthandfitness.com/product/roccoband/

By Campbell Spence

Owners of vacant shops, derelict buildings and vacant land in Port Phillip could be hit with a rate rise of 300 to 400 per cent in a proposal by Council in a bid to revitalise our high streets which have seen numerous business closures.  

The council proposes to introduce the higher rates in the 2024-25 Budget in an attempt to push landlords to lease their disused properties.

Most residents would agree that Council must do more to revitalise our once vibrant and iconic high streets, but others are questioning the merit of introducing punitive and higher differential rates for vacant and derelict buildings and land.

Council Watch president Dean Hurlston said the City of Port Phillip was taking an “anti-business” approach to the problem of vacant properties and shops.

“It’s using a blunt instrument, designed to penalise those already struggling with high costs of goods and high wages growth,” Hurlston said. “The council should be ashamed of itself for threatening small business owners.”

The Council clearly recognises there is a significant issue “to address neglected land use that results in negative impacts to the municipality due to being under-utilised, causing safety and amenity concerns, and vibrancy concerns”.

One resident asked, “how does tripling rates on top of land taxes incentivise a landlord to find tenants for their vacant shops when consumer confidence and discretionary spending are low due to the weak economy?”.

Many shops are vacant in Bay Street, Port Melbourne and Acland Street, St Kilda had a vacancy rate of 27.5 per cent last year, according to one property consultancy – worse than Bridge Road in Richmond with 22.2 per cent.

Councillors will vote in June on the proposal to raise rates for derelict land and vacant retail spaces if unoccupied for more than two years to 400 per cent higher than residential rates and raise rates for vacant land by 300 per cent. Approximately 80 properties in Port Phillip are derelict or are vacant shops.

The proposal does not increase the Council’s overall rates revenues collected, but the owners of vacant and derelict land will have to contribute more rates compared to a property that is occupied.

Image of vacant shops on Fitzroy Street, St Kilda

Image of derelict former Poison nightclub in Fitzroy Street

By an Albert Park resident and VCAT objector

Albert Park objectors recently received the VCAT decision on a five-level development proposal 146,148 and 150 Bridport St Albert Park, adjacent to the historic Biltmore.

After 10 hearing days and evidence from numerous heritage experts and planners, VCAT has determined that the development proposal for a 5-level building was “discordant with the prevailing building scale” of Bridport Street and has deleted the top floor reducing the building to four levels (ground, 1, 2,3). The Tribunal was concerned of “the impact (that the proposal) will have on the heritage character and streetscape”.

This outcome is in line with the one floor reduction proposed by a motion by Crs Sirakoff and Cunsolo at Council’s Planning Committee Meeting held 26 October 2023 before the VCAT hearing. 

Disappointingly, Crs Bond, Baxter, Crawford, Clark, Martin and Nyaguy all voted against the motion.

Had this motion been upheld by Council, then all parties may have been spared the time and considerable cost to each participant of a appearing at VCAT. It is notable that Council itself incurred considerable costs in retaining external expert legal representation at VCAT to support the FIVE level development.

How can this spending by Council be fiscally supported?

What cost/ benefit analysis is undertaken before approval is given within Council for such a substantial spend?

It’s time for our Councillors, in making planning decisions, to be educated and listen to VCAT and apply that knowledge when exercising their decision making on planning issues before committing ratepayers’ funds unnecessarily.

In October 2023 , a petition was commenced on change.org  https://www.change.org/p/reject-5-storey-development-in-the-albert-park-village?source_location=search  calling for Council to reject this 5 level development.

With over 570 signatories, while Council champions “engagement”, does Council actually listen?

In Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, the line “there is something rotten in Denmark” has become synonymous with issues surrounding poor governance, poor management, and inefficiency in public organisations. In fairness to the City of Port Phillip, they are not alone in receiving public frustration at council inadequacy. Across the inner metro, the message is clear: local government can do much better than has currently been demonstrated.

Poor Performance Borne Out by Statewide Survey

In the 2023 Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey by JWS Research, on 18 metrics, metro councils were given an average rating of 62%. This rating compared favourably against the CoPP that saw its overall performance decline from 64% to 58% during the period 2022-2023.

If we look at the 10 worst ratings given to the City of Port Phillip, each metric declined over the period. Interestingly, these areas all sit within the core mandate of Council under the loosely termed “Rates, Roads and Rubbish” and also within the overlay of community expectation of good governance, transparency and well understood communication.

Of further interest was the rating assigned to waste management which received one of the higher ratings of 67%. The survey was done before the change in waste management contract and the subsequent poor findings by two independent reviews. One could presume that this rating will fall sharply in any 2024 ratings when undertaken by the independent group.

Clearly from the above, the City of Port Phillip can do much better in core services.

What do the Surveys Tell Us On What Residents Want?

One of the ongoing concerns by residents in the CoPP, is the priorities set by Council and its elected representatives.  If we look at two surveys by Council Watch and Residents of Port Phillip [RoPP] an interesting similarity emerges on what priorities, core issues and current perceptions are important to residents. This correlation can be summarised once again as a reinforcing expectation around the loosely termed phrase “Rates, Roads and Rubbish.”

Much of what can be summarised in the above table also confirms the poor findings in the Local Government Community Satisfaction survey rating and deteriorating result of the City of Port Phillip over the period, in its overall satisfaction rating.

If we delve further into the Council Watch Survey, it becomes very clear what residents want more of and want less of from their Council in terms of allocation of resources.       

WHAT WE WANT                                                                                   WHAT WE WANT LESS OF

Once again, we see that "Roads, Rates and Rubbish" (read as core council remit) dominate resident expectations. Leading on from this data it does not take much research to ascertain who of our Councillors are in touch with community expectations and those that have activist agendas removed from the sensible centre where most of us belong. Those with activist agendas are prepared to utilise council money to spend in areas not in line with what the general cohort of resident’s wants and demands. Similarly on those areas that residents demand further attention too, the CoPP has a very poor overall rating compared with other metro Councils. This was confirmed by an additional two independent surveys highlighting the priority issues and concerns expressed by residents.

Is the CoPP Keeping a Tight Reign on Cost and Driving Efficiency?

Staffing

Once again, we can look to comparative data from other inner metro Council’s collated by Council Watch to build an understanding in this regard.

Data on average employee costs covering 22 Metro and inner-city councils, provide concerning conclusions for residents. Pertinent points include:

• Average salary costs of $129,174 ay CoPPwas the second highest.
• Staff per 1000 of 8.19 at CoPP was the second highest.

When compared against neighbouring councils, the City of Port Phillip is an obvious outlier. What could possibly justify such a high differential between CoPP and our immediate neighbours?

The high average salary cost within the CoPP leads to a very possible conclusion of a top-heavy staff structure. Another area of concern is that the CoPP in 2023, increased the number of employees to 975 (6% increase) which leads to the following questions:

Where are the efficiencies? Ask yourself, have services improved with this higher staff ratio to population? What’s the real cost of the large exodus of fulltime CoPP workers to working from home? What is the turnover rate of employees in CoPP and why? Where is the productivity dividend through greater use of technology? Are the new positions over 2023 skewed to where residents have said they want more money spent or less money spent on? Is our Council captive to the Public Sector Union?

Growth in Expenses

Expenses over the last 10 years have also grown ahead of inflation. On the face of it, when you also consider the lack of an efficiency dividend, a conclusion could be a laxity in council spending and excessive spending on non-core functions and priorities.

Growth in Revenue

Growth in revenue has increased over the period 2016-2023 of 28.3% or an average of 4% per year. The increase in revenue from both rates and non-rate (fines/fees etc.), more than the growth in expenses, has led to a $149 million increase in current assets. While the CoPP can be marked highly for the large current assets on their balance sheet, it has been borne largely by rate payers and higher fee collections.

In Summary

The real rub, borne out by the three surveys, suggest that excessive spending by the CoPP and corresponding rate and revenue gauging is well overshadowed by:

• Poor performance, governance, and direction
• Poor internal culture
• Poor value for money
• Overreach on activist agendas by certain Councillors and office bearers and
• A failure to deliver to a satisfactory level on key priorities as expressed by residents.

The CoPP suffers from a trust deficit within the community. Lack of confidence in management and decision making is well entrenched within the minds of residents. Moving forward, there needs to be an honest conversation and a mea culpa. Where the Council has made mistakes and or shown not to have delivered well, then own it and deal with it. Importantly they need to take the wax out of their ears. Listen and learn - that’s where real leadership begins.

Now is the time for the CoPP to embark on a detailed internal review with some serious soul searching backed by a less political focus by some of our Councillors. Council needs to refocus on their core mandate and not be distracted by woke and minority only supported agendas.

Maybe the opening premise in their review should be:

“The residents do not work for us. We the CoPP, work for the residents”.

Ron’s Rant

I hate linen clothing. I don’t like the way it crinkles and creases. I hate linen shirt’s especially, for as soon as you take it, crisply ironed off the hanger, it is ruined. Then as you begin to wear it, it starts to deform, it never holds its shape and virtually melts in a crumpled mess. 

I hate linen jackets and I hate linen pants too, because invariably as time wears on, you end up looking like a crumpled ball of wastepaper. And your crotch by the end of the day sends all the wrong messages. But my wife loves linen and thinks that l look good in it. So she buys me linen clothes even though I tell her that I hate linen. 

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I suspect she puts me in linen to make her look even more beautiful than she is, as she drags around a crumpled contorted miserable looking Quasimodo. It makes me feel ugly and I feel like a little child that is getting a speck of food rubbed of my face with her spit moistened hankie. 

I really hate linen clothing. I’m ok with linen tablecloths but they don’t move. Just sit flat and can’t wrinkle. I just hope when I die they don’t dress me up in linen.. actually it would probably be the only time I wouldn’t wrinkle… but I still hate linen..

Residents of Port Phillip are pleased to invite you to attend our Community Meeting to discuss your expectations of the Port Phillip Council and how you can improve Council services for Albert Park Ward. We will be announcing additional community meetings in other wards in the near future. 

Time: 7:30 - 8:30 pm

Date: Monday 17^th June 2024

Venue: Middle Park Community Centre (Upstairs) 254-256 Richardson St, Middle Park 

Agenda

1. Welcome and agenda 

2. What do residents want from Port Phillip Council?

3. How do you want to hear it? 

4. Cr Sirakoff and Cr Clark  - Successes and Challenges

5. Introduction to RoPP Candidate for Albert Park 

6. Request for RoPP support and helpers

You must pre-register as attendee numbers are limited. RSVP by Friday 14th June by registering at mail@ropp.org.au

Who are the Residents of Port Phillip (RoPP) ? 

• RoPP believes Port Phillip is better served by independent Councillors who put our community first.
• RoPP is a grassroots community association that advocates on behalf of residents and business owners for sensible decisions, responsible spending and lower rates and charges. See https://ropp.org.au

By Campbell Spence 

It is now harder for non-resident property owners to vote in Council elections. Previously, property owners who didn’t live in Port Phillip were automatically enrolled on the Council’s electoral roll so that they would receive ballot papers by post.

Now non-resident property owners must apply to be on their Council’s electoral roll if they want to vote in the October 2024 and any future local council elections and by-elections. Changes to the rules were made by the Victorian Government when the Local Government Act in 2020 was amended.

If you are a non-resident property or business owner who pays rates in the City of Port Phillip, you must opt-in by enrolling with the Council if you wish to vote in the election/s.

The Council website advises that they are posting application forms to non-resident property and business owners and applications must be returned by before “4pm on the day the roll closes” which is not specified.

The local council elections will be held in October, by postal ballot. The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) will send ballot packs with instructions to all enrolled voters in Port Phillip to vote, in early October.

The diagram below shows the types of voters who are eligible to vote in this election.

Source: https://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/about-the-council/who-we-are/council-elections

How many voters are affected by the new rules?

In 2020 there were approximately 22,500 non-resident ratepayers of a total of 75,000 properties in Port Phillip. Nearly one-third of Port Phillip ratepayers will have to opt-in to receive a ballot paper in October this year.

These voters were automatically listed on the Council election roll in 2020 and received ballot papers by post. In 2020 voter turnout was greatly improved with 70% of enrolled voters lodging a paper postal ballot compared to 49% at the 2016 election which was largely attendance voting at polling booths. In 2016 only 10% of non-resident property owners voted. The reason given by these ratepayers to Port Phillip Matters, is that they either did not know they could vote in two Council areas, or it was too difficult to attend a polling booth.

Prior to 2020, the City of Port Phillip had the lowest voter turnouts in Victoria because most absentee property owners did not vote.

We can expect a poor turnout if non-resident voters do not opt-in to enroll for voting. A poor voter turnout would be a smack in the face for democracy! How can Councillors claim they represent the community if less than half of the electorate voted? Is this good for democracy in Port Phillip?

• Staffing costs and numbers had increased beyond averages of other comparable Councils,
• Consultancies were playing an expensive role within Council decision making,
• Large sums of ratepayer money were still going to politically aligned interests and
• A burgeoning and growing art collection of over $20 million that spends its time locked away in Council basements.

• Council expenditure had over the last eight years exceeded the inflation rate and
• Total revenue had also greatly exceeded the inflation rate with a period marked by large surpluses and current assets including cash now over $140 million!

• Cost shifting from the state government,
• Forward committing the CoPP budget to 10 years of expenditure (totalling $10 million) only puts upwards pressure on our rates and reduces budget flexibility going forward.
• It is wrong to commit in an election year this sort of expenditure by Councillors who might not even recontest or be re-elected.
• $10 million over 10 years would not touch the surface of the current government induced housing crisis.

• “Move on” provisions in our local laws and
• who show only but passing interest to small business concerns, the latest being the push for bike paths on Inkerman Street -such a move would badly affect business and local residents who are also strongly opposed to the bike lanes.

1. Help elect like-minded RoPP endorsed candidates who focus on residents and to change the priorities of the Port Phillip Council to focus on getting the basic services right.
2. Bring sensible spending to Council to reduce pressure on rates and charges, and other fees.
3. Your donations will help fund activities aimed towards electing RoPP endorsed independent candidates in the October 2024 council elections.

RoPP Friends - $50 per year 

• Invitations to events (Event tickets not included)
• Updates to campaign and what’s going on at ROPP.

• +350% increase in dwellings (but only 46% increase in social housing)
• 4x previous population on this site is likely to exceed 1200 people
• 15x the annual population growth for Port Melbourne in a single block in a single year
• 93% of all trees to be removed.

• There is currently a wave of anti-social behaviour,
• Criminality especially drug dealing is rife on our main high streets,
• Drug users are visible especially near 7 Eleven and the Chemist shops in Fitzroy Street,
• Violent drug affected and anti-social behaviour leading to innocent people being severely bashed or robbed including a recent death on Acland Street,
• Naked person(s) running through Acland Court,
• Break-ins and robberies,
• Defecation in front of customers in one of our supermarkets,
• Verbal abuse/spitting/harassment from a small rowdy crowd of rough sleepers and the like, 
• Graffiti littered streets,
• Spitting and verbal abuse,
• Out of control AIRBNB rentals with associated drug parties, and sadly
• An element of antisemitic and anti-homosexual bile from misfits.

• IMF research finds Australia at the top of 25 countries as measured by households’ vulnerability to interest rate increases,
• Australia has one of the highest levels of household debt measured at over 100% of GDP,
• Rapid decline in household income, with Victoria now rated the worst in Australia,
• Victorian household incomes back to 2014 levels,
• Victoria has recently been rated very poorly in the economic scorecard report compared with other States,
• Victoria now the highest taxed State in Australia.
• Collapse in affordable housing (rental crisis)

• Council expenses (less depreciation) grew faster over the period than the inflation rate (Average 3.7% against 3.3%). This suggests that that we have not seen any substantive efficiency dividend over the period. I believe this part of the point Councillor Clark was making. Where are the real efficiency dividends when expenses are higher than the inflation rate over the last seven years?
• Council rates as a percentage of total revenue remained steady at 55% over the period. While a rate cap of 2.3% average over the period was less than the inflation rate, increasing market values of properties in the CoPP lifted total revenue attributed to rates above the cap level.
• Total revenue exceeded expenses (4% on average against 3.7%) over the period due to the increase in non-rate revenue (Interest income/statutory fees and fines etc),
• This is reflected in the large increase in financial assets (average of 9% increase over the period with a growth of 63% in total) and now sitting at $149 million!

Like thousands before me I've hired the scooters from both Lime & Neuron, but I took the plunge and when F1 commenced this year, I bravely embarked on my first Lime bike ride! When the bus was too much to bear (it was an hour from St Kilda to Southern Cross) after the trams were cancelled, I made my way with walking shoes on, attempting the trek home on foot for a bit of exercise on a sunny afternoon from the CBD back to St Kilda. 

Luckily, I stumbled across an e-bike quickly, on Bourke St, blocking the footpath as usual and thought, why not! After all, they're healthy and cost effective (according to Lime & Neuron and of course the Greens), and they provide the wider community with options to get around this great city we call home. 

We wouldn't need to be that reliant on them if our public transport was more cost effective and more frequent ($10.60 a day, St Kilda to the CBD return and about $2 if I was dropped off in the car, but that's for another day)! 

I walked the bike closer to the designated bike lanes away from the roads to ensure I was confident enough to navigate my way home on a bike that wasn't my own. Not paying much attention, I also missed the big metal thing on the frame that turned out to be a motor I'd picked up an electric bike, another new one for me. As much as I love my ride, I prefer the old-fashioned way of peddling! 

There are perfectly good bike lanes, off the road, no need to share the space with cars for most of the trip, an amazing ride through Port Melbourne, onto the Esplanade and eventually back to St Kilda. I'm hooked on hire bikes for those without their own wheels, while the weather is good, I can mix up my commute by using one of my own bikes, or when I feel like it. 

And then I signed out, after leaving it in a safe space, not blocking a driveway, a footpath, a shop entrance or kicking it in the gutter, I got the charge!

A whopping AUD $38.50! 

That's the price of a half decent bottle of wine, a pizza takeaway for the family or for some, it's the weekly grocery budget! Exactly how is this cost effective? Exactly how does charging $38.50 for a trip that is 6 kilometres reasonable? An Uber from the CBD to St Kilda is under $20. Exactly what is Council making out of these hire companies? With the proceeds why don't they provide docking stations which is by far, the most sensible way to avoid them being littered around town. And why are we touting these things as 'cost effective'? At that price, I'd rather walk. 

• Council Plan and Budget
• Reconciliation Action Plan
• Foreshore Management and Coastal Adaptation
• St Kilda Promenade Safety Upgrade
• Footpath Trading Guidelines and Fees
• St Kilda Adventure Playground

• Council Plan and Budget
• Footpath Trading Guidelines

• Council Plan and Budget
• Footpath Trading Guidelines
• Our Coastal Future

• Council Plan and Budget
• St Kilda Adventure Playground

• Council Plan and Budget
• St Kilda Adventure Playground
• Reconciliation Action Plan

• Council Plan and Budget
• St Kilda Adventure Playground
• Reconciliation Action Plan

• Council Plan and Budget
• St Kilda Adventure Playground
• Footpath Trading Guidelines

• Council Plan and Budget
• St Kilda Adventure Playground
• Reconciliation Action Plan

• Council Plan and Budget
• Our Coastal Future
• Footpath Trading Guidelines

• If you are a resident and not a ratepayer of course you are comfortable with a higher level of services, after all you are not footing the bill. The “free rider” effect.
• If you are a ratepayer, you could reasonably have a different view, wanting lower rates and a commensurate reduction in services.

• A reduction in use of consultants.
• Cease funding the East Timor project.
• Reduce the purchase of art. The CoPP currently has more than $18 million in art works, most of which are stored.
• Benchmarks that bring current high staff ratios within the CoPP in line with other councils through a natural staff attrition program. That is doing more with less combined with reducing non-core services while elevating core responsibilities.

• Communications, community engagement, consultation, and responsiveness poor
• Community priorities vs. Council agendas mismatch, insensitivity to residents' needs and concerns
• Decision making and prioritisation poor
• Distribution of resources inequitable, wasteful spending on non-essential projects
• Environmental concerns 
• Financial management, transparency, and accountability
• Infrastructure, maintenance, safety, cleanliness, rubbish collection and waste management 
• Inquiries and complaints handling ineffective
• Leadership and governance poor, lack of transparency and honesty
• Parking issues 
• Planning and development issues
• Political agendas, ideology, and governance
• Rates excessive
• Resistance to change or improvement
• Safety and crime concerns
• Service delivery inefficiencies
• Staff numbers and associated costs excessive, bureaucracy and inefficiency

Download Full Report Here

For:         Crs Rhonda Clark, Marcus Pearl, and Christina Sirakoff

Against:     Crs Tim Baxter, Louise Crawford, Heather Cunsolo, Peter Martin, Robbie Nyaguy, Andrew Bond

Photo of Graeme Cox – APYC Commodore, Warwick Lloyd – Sponsorship, Paul Taig – Committee, Peter Naismith - Ex Commodore, Tony Roberts - Treasurer

(Ben Canaider is an award-winning author of more than a dozen books translated into three languages and a journalist who has worked for The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Courier Mail, and The Spectator.)

• More likely to visit eateries charging cheaper meals and cheaper drinks and also customers are going out less frequently. 
• Also, while a few new businesses are opening, there is concern that more are closing due to increased state and excise taxes. 
It was highlighted, that three businesses recently closed in Clarendon St. 
• There are the yearly high lights such as the St Kilda Festival which is free and is underpinned by the ratepayers and there is also the Australia Grand Prix, which do provide a sugar hit to the local economy, but businesses are suffering on our high streets.

Council debate

Time Limits for Councillors Required

Quality of Councillors – Years of Appointment

• more bike lanes irrespective of widespread opposition and in the case of the current debate on Inkerman Street ongoing dismissal of rate payer and business concerns
• construction of toilets located next to St Kilda primary, when parents at the school were overwhelming in favour that the proposal did not go ahead and
• even those forces determined to confuse the Captain Cook statue debate when the clear point was that vandalism should never be rewarded in any form,

• Acland Street with the worst rental vacancy in Victoria,
• Unsettled traders in Carlise Street which made the news throughout 2023,
• The problems within Clarendon Street with homelessness and drugs (along with Fitzroy and Acland streets) and the
• Myth of the rejuvenation of Fitzroy Street- Its more spin than reality.

Council voted on Wednesday 21 February to transfer in-home aged care services to approved Commonwealth not-for-profit service providers, in a move that will result in forty-five positions being made redundant.

The services that will transfer to not-for-profit agencies include carer respite services, cleaning assistance, shopping support, assistance with personal care and showering and home modifications. 

The decision to transition these services was based on several factors including the Australian Government’s changes to how aged care services are delivered, the financial sustainability of providing the services and inability to meet demand for services.  Currently, the CoPP are losing $1.7 million on providing these services. If Councillors had voted to maintain these in-home services, then the CoPP would have had to cut $1.7M from other services.

Council has committed resources to ensuring a seamless transition of the services from July 2024 to not-for-profit agencies that meet the required clinical and quality standards. Council will continue to run the existing in-home services until all clients have transitioned to the new service providers.

The decision was opposed by vested interests that ran a scare campaign, causing unnecessary anxiety for older residents. Vulnerable elderly people residents were misinformed that their aged care services will be cut and privatised. A tactic which seems to have been designed to protect forty-five age care positions despite assurances that Council will find new jobs for the employees. 

An attempt to delay the decision by six months was defeated in a vote. 

For: Cr Baxter, Cr Nyaguy and Cr Crawford

Against: Cr Bond, Cr Clark, Cr Cunsolo, Cr Martin, Cr Pearl, Cr Sirakoff

Council will continue to provide services for older residents under the Village Model, including social support, transport including the Council run ‘Hop On, Hop Off’ bus and delivered meals. 

Council will provide a Community Connector service for an initial 12–18 month period to assist older people transition from their existing programs to a number of services including:

• The new Support at Home Program
  
• The My Aged Care program 
• Council, and locally provided services already mentioned, and most importantly,
• The maintenance of continuity of care with no gap in the overall services for all clients.

Council have been struggling to provide in-home aged care services due to staff shortages. This has been confirmed by residents who have contacted Port Phillip Matters. An elderly Port Melbourne couple were not able to get their home cleaned by council even though they were recipients of a My Aged Care home care package. The couple informed that Council did not have sufficient staff to provide the cleaning services and the couple were put on a waiting list. A Middle Park resident in his late 80s had not received assistance from Council for six months despite having an approved home care package. 

The final decision to implement the new aged care arrangements was voted up as follows:

For: Cr Bond, Cr Clark, Cr Cunsolo, Cr Martin, Cr Pearl, Cr Sirakoff

Against: Cr Baxter, Cr Nyaguy and Cr Crawford

During the debate over the fate of the Captain Cook statue in Catani Gardens, one of the councillors asked what is the definition of woke? The rhetorical question was put in response to the proposition that the removal of the statue would be a capitulation to woke ideologies. 

Woke is now the new term for political correctness and is a cultural revolution driven by identity politics and victimhood. The woke movement is best understood as a religion - one that makes grand claims to moral purity and tolerates no dissent. Its disciples even have their own language, rituals, and a determination to root out sinners through what has become known as 'cancel culture'.

The term originally described an awaking to social injustices but has now become a term of abuse and derision, largely in part due to the intolerance and authoritarian behaviours of woke practitioners. 

Woke is a belief system that is hostile to individual liberty and insists that nobody is an individual and everybody belongs to some category of identify based on ethnicity, sexuality, gender, race, religion.  Once you get identified you are ranked according to your degree of victimhood, where people are classed as either privileged oppressors or as victims. 

Woke is fundamentally divisive because it pits one group against another: you are either an oppressor or the oppressed. For example, identity politics dictates that all women are oppressed by men. This may be true in some circumstances, but it's not true for all men and women. Women have the same rights as men under Australian law and discrimination against women by men is a crime. 

It is now common for people including some of our Councillors to claim victimhood status in the false belief that their victimhood confers unearned moral virtue and authority. 

Life can be challenging, and everyone must deal with adversity at some time in their lives. We can become ill, lose our jobs, become addicted to alcohol and drugs, we can be betrayed by friends, fail to get promoted, not have enough money, lose loved ones and ultimately, we die. 

Our best chance of dealing with adversity is being grateful, rather than feeling embittered and resentful. We have agency as individuals to deal with adversity. Behaving as a resentful victim does not improve our circumstances but it might get you a government handout. 

Woke is authoritarian and illiberal. Woke seeks to characterise alternative views as misinformation and disinformation. If you are woke, you are told what to think, not how to think. 

This ideology has no place in a liberal democracy which must embrace the rule of law and freedom of speech. We must embrace diversity of ideas not just characteristics such as race, religion, gender, and sexually. 

Woke seeks to find offence and to stifle dissent. If you don't agree with wokeness, you are categorised as racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, far-right or neo-Nazi.

The Councillor who asked for the definition of woke made claims of moral righteousness and a far-right slur towards his colleagues with whom he disagreed. Woke is not interested in hearing views with which it disagrees.

Cr Tim Baxter falsely claimed these Councillors “were more interested in protecting a statue – a lump of metal” than “protecting queer children and rainbow families from death threats” in reference to the cancellation of drag story time at council libraries last year. His comments were not truthful because these planned events were cancelled to ensure the protection of children and their families. 

Name calling, personal attacks and telling lies are part of the woke tool kit. 

This Councillor accused his colleagues of engaging in culture wars when he realised the divisive motion would fail. Culture wars are worth fighting against when people are seeking to rewrite history and when are our values are threatened. The woke scream culture wars when they are losing control of their divisive agendas. 

They claim a lack of democracy or of not being heard when democracy doesn’t support their position. Democracy is valued only when supporting their version of the world. 

Cutting down the Cook statue was described as a ‘hate filled political crime’ by Jason Briggs of Boonwurrung Land and Sea Council. The act of vandalism was designed by political activists who seek to divide our community when we should be engaging in bringing our community together. 

Woke is the enemy of social cohesion and the desire to unite all Australians based on a set of values rather than the false and fractious beliefs of identity politics. 

On behalf of the Macey family to the people of the City of Port Phillip.

The Wake to celebrate Reg Macey's life and achievements will be held:

Date: Friday 22nd March 

Time: 2pm onwards...

Where: The Cornerstone Hotel, Port Melbourne. 

A ceremony will be held at 3pm until 4pm.
 At the conclusion of the ceremony, the song ‘Bagdad’ will be sung.
 Everyone will be welcome to stay on as long as they like.

We are holding a good ole fashioned wake. Music, singing, sharing stories, meeting old friends, and making new. 


Come along and buy yourself a bevy and raise a glass to Reg!

I am a resident in St Kilda East, and I oppose Council’s proposal to construct a separated bicycle lane on Inkerman Street between St Kilda Rd and Hotham St with the removal of 116 car parks (option A). I spoke at Council on 21 February 2024 in relation to Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy.

Since the Integrated Transport Strategy was written in 2018, and protected bicycle lanes have been rolled out in various locations, residents and traders have widely objected, because these bike lanes have caused safety issues, made driving and parking very difficult, caused economic damage to local businesses and are not used by the majority of residents.

Examples of poorly considered transport infrastructure are unfortunately plentiful in Port Phillip: the introduction of the tram super stop in Acland Street, which resulted in road closure to traffic and loss of car parking which has resulted in economic losses and shop vacancies, is one. Another is Fitzroy St, which suffered from the loss of car parking when the separated bicycle lane was introduced.

It was therefore encouraging that Council amended their Integrated Transport Strategy at the 21 February 2024 council meeting, changing Action 18 from 

“Deliver a network of dedicated and continuous protected bike corridors to create safer routes for all ages and abilities.”

to 

“Deliver a range of interventions to build a network of connected, safe riding options, ensuring safety for people of all ages and abilities and continue to explore opportunities for the provision of protected bike lanes in the City of Port Phillip.” and also to “advocate to State government to deliver protected bike corridors on state-managed arterial roads”

The removal of protected bicycle lanes as the only option to create safer cycling routes is a rare win for common sense. Councillors voted along party lines to adopt these changes: 

For:  Cr Bond, Cr Clark, Cr Crawford, Cr Cunsolo, Cr Pearl, Cr Sirakoff

Against: Cr Baxter, Cr Martin

Abstained: Cr Nyaguy (who walked out of the meeting prior to the vote)

I strongly support this amendment, especially considering the time and cost blowouts reported by council, and wholeheartedly congratulate Council for their sensible amendment to this strategy. Many residents would be aghast to learn that Council now projects that the Inkerman St bicycle lane will cost almost $10 million.

Community consultation is a key pillar of making community-minded decisions. However, the way in which surveys are conducted determines whether the results can be relied upon as a true gauge of community sentiment. The community survey undertaken by Council for the Integrated Transport Strategy change is instructive of how survey results can be biased, and it is promising that the majority of Councillors were able to recognise the flawed results and vote accordingly.

The community survey (Item 10.1 at https://portphillip.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/02/ORD_21022024_AGN_AT_WEB.htm) had 78 responses, where 87% of respondents said they currently ride a bike. Compare this to the National Walking and Cycling Participation Survey 2021 (https://www.cwanz.com.au/national-walking-and-cycling-participation-survey-2021/) where only 18% of Australians rode a bike over the previous week and 40% over the previous year (and this was during the COVID pandemic where bike riding increased). Why did 87% of respondents say they rode a bike regularly vs. 18% of the Australian public? 

Because, Council specifically sought feedback from the Port Phillip Bicycle Users Group who are actively lobbying council to adopt Option A for Inkerman St (https://www.ppbug.org/bug-blog/tag/inkerman+st), which would result in 116 car spaces being removed.

This is a good demonstration of selection bias in a small community survey, where the vast majority of residents in Port Phillip have not “had their say”. The survey responses are not indicative of community support, but of what a dedicated group of bike enthusiasts believe. Residents of Port Phillip know that most of our local roads are quiet and safe for cyclists.

I am happy that council are talking a more holistic and considered approach to the complex issue of transport, and agree entirely with Council lobbying the Victorian Government to fund bicycle corridors along State-managed arterial roads.

Sensible strategies can be implemented if the views of the whole community are taken into account. 

Proposals which remove car parking spots from our roads, which the majority of residents use and require, should be voted down by Council. Council should instead promote cycling infrastructure to improve safety only where there is objective safety data to demonstrate risk, and the needs of the wider community can be carefully considered. Balanced approaches to transport in our community will ensure that Port Phillip remains a great place to live and work.

Council has rejected a proposal to permanently close the intersection of Pickles Street with Bridge and Glover Streets. The council has voted to terminate the trial and remove the temporary barriers (pictured). 

The decision was contentious as Council Officers reported positive trial results while residents advocated for a better solution to improve safety and manage traffic flow at this intersection in the interests of all users and manage traffic speed in Pickles Street. 

Officers reported the trial to be successful in reducing recorded crashes, without significantly changing traffic volumes in the adjacent local road network.

Residents on the other hand reported vehicles being driven over the median closure, making unsafe U turns at either end of the median closure to access both Bridge and Glover Streets, ‘Keep left’ signs being knocked down and increased danger for cyclists and pedestrians crossing the road at the median strip. It was surprising that none of these dangerous behaviours were acknowledged in the evaluation report.

Council Officers have been requested to provide the timeline for the removal of the safety temporary closure.  

Councillors voted against recommendation to make the median closure permanent at the intersection with the vote split as follows.

For: Cr Baxter, Cr Bond, Martin and Pearl

Against: Crs Crawford, Clark, Cusnsolo, Sirakoff 

Abstained: Cr Nyaguy

The motion was lost because the Mayor used her casting vote. 

I hate being told what to wear. But the relentless brain washing fashion nazis have been on my case for decades. 

Now I think myself a rather stylish guy. I get it from my father who was a conservative but snappy dresser. Always wore cologne and was fastidious about his hair and nails. While I am not quite as fussy, I think I do make a good effort. But not according to my jack-booted partner that will give me the once over before I leave home and more often send me back to my wardrobe for radical adjustment therapy. And often I am forced to do multiple wardrobe appointments .

Now I met my partner at work and in those days I proudly self-dressed. This was a while ago. I really liked wearing corduroy and had a passion for wearing knitted woollen vests, most which were crafted by my talented mother, which I considered quite fetching and very practical with Melbourne’s ever-changing weather.

Clearly love is blind, as I should have seen the light when my new girlfriend started to take me out ‘clothes shopping.’ Now I did have my own clothing shopping system based upon the wear out factor as well as regular retail outfit purchases every two or so years. I liked to get value and leaned towards practical technologies like drip dry shirts that negated the need to iron, though they did promote body odour… but you can’t have everything.

Needless to say, my partner buys all my clothes and I have no say. And when I do venture out in a fit of brave stupidity and buy an item of clothing, I am frog marched back to the store for an embarrassing refund. Worse still is that she had deputized one of my daughters so in my partners absence I still got the “You’re not actually going to wear that are you?” echo throughout house. There was nowhere to hide… Thankfully my daughter has left home now but still treats me like a fashion failure and now she also buys me clothes. 

It’s been many decades now that I have lost my independence. But it’s all about love...and fear...and the price you pay to have a happy life and a happy wife…

But I still hate being told what to wear - truth be told I have been beaten into submission and really don’t give a rats anymore. 

But I do still love corduroy and knitwear. 

The countdown is on - just 2 weeks until the St Kilda Park Primary School 2024 Fete! 

CAN YOU DONATE TO OUR SILENT AUCTION?

SKIPPS silent auction is the fete’s major fundraiser and features generous donations from across the community. 

In 2024 SKIPPS's main fundraising goal is to resurface the basketball court, which is at the heart of the school community. After years of heavy use, it has deteriorated, and SKIPPS aim to install a new surface so children can play safely.

SKIPPS target is to raise $50,000.

>> If you have a product you'd like to donate SKIPPS would love to hear from you 

>> For details about the fete

New single Councillor wards for Port Phillip City Council were announced on 15 February. An independent electoral structure review panel appointed by the Minister for Local Government has recommended the new electoral structure. 

The nine single-councillor wards will replace the existing three wards with three Councillors in each ward and will apply in the October 2024 Council elections.  The new ward structure has determined: 

• the appropriate number of councillors and wards for the council 
• the location of ward boundaries 
• appropriate ward names. 

The new wards have 10,000 to 12,000 voters compared to current wards which have around 30,000 voters. In principle, Councillors will be able to better represent their constituents, but representation is entirely dependent on the Councillor’s commitment to responding to emails and telephone calls and whether they have full time employment. 

The independent report presents the panel’s final advice to the Minister for Local Government on the recommended new electoral structure of Port Phillip City Council to meet the requirements of the Act. The Minister is expected to approve the recommended nine single wards. 

For more information refer to the Advisory Panel’s report 

The 2024 Melbourne International Comedy Festival kicks off on 27 March. And the great news is you don't have to go to the CBD to enjoy it. This year, it comes to you!

St Kilda Cellars Wine Bar (45 Fitzroy Street) plays host to Joel Temperly's Comedy Festival solo debut, '110% Jokes'.

The venue is no stranger to stand-up comedy. In fact, February is the two year anniversary of its weekly comedy show: Comedy in the Cellar. But this year, Joel and "Cellars" have decided to crank it up a notch and bring the comfest southside.

You can catch '110% Jokes' at 7pm Wednesday to Sunday, and 9.30pm on Tuesdays, throughout the festival. Tickets are $14-$18.50 and can be bought here. Use code CHEAPSKATE at checkout to get a 10 percent discount.

This is a great chance to catch an up-and-coming Melbourne comedian without having to brave the hustle and bustle of the CBD, all the while supporting a great local business.

If you want to find out more about the show, check out the comedy festival website or follow Joel on Instagram (@joeltemperly).

Council voted to reinstate the vandalised statue of Caption James Cook located on the St Kilda Foreshore. The statue was cut down by criminal vandals prior to Australia Day, only hours before security arrangements were to be activated. This coincidence does not go past unnoticed.

The act is driven by hate, and is a criminal act of vandalism to the heritage listed statue which will come at a cost to the community. This was perpetrated by extreme political activists who painted the plinth with “the colony will fall’. On the eve of Australia Day in 2023, the same statue was covered in red paint raising concerns about the merit of restoring the statue when future acts of vandalism can be expected. 

Cr Robbie Nyaguy brought a motion to Council only one week prior to the council meeting without seeking support or giving notice to all Councillors prior to the February 7th meeting. His motion was essentially NOT TO RE-INSTATE the statue until such time as the council had ‘established the costs and timeframe for the reinstatement’ of the Captain Cook’s Statue and ‘to conduct a community engagement process to understand community views on the reinstatement or removal of the statue ahead of any works being undertaken’.

The motion surprised many residents as Premier Jacinta Allen said the State Government would assist with the cost of reinstating and supported immediate action.

It was therefore odd to see a motion from a labor councillor which was not supported by the public view and did not align with the statements of the premier.

Cr Nyaguy advocated for a lengthy and costly community engagement process prior to reinstatement, yet he has already commented in the Herald Sun that he doesn’t want to put the statue back up. 

Because of numerous submissions from the public including a full Gallery preparing to speak to the matter at the meeting, and a letter from the Boonwurrung Land and Sea Council requesting the statue be reinstated immediately and denouncing the criminal act, Cr Nyaguy was forced to rush changes to his motion during the meeting. However he pressed on with devising wedge politics and prosecuting a now, watered-down motion. He changed tactic to allow for the statue to be restored immediately and ‘to conduct community engagement to understand community views on the location and context of the statue’. The councillor patched together an amended motion during the meeting as he knew his original motion would not get up, without amending the motion to immediately restore the statue.

Councillors spent almost two hours debating the amended motion. The debate was often acrimonious and nasty at times with numerous points of order and threats. Mayor Cunsolo did an excellent job to chair the meeting and at one point, a resident was ejected from the public gallery. 

The amended motion was rejected because community consultation was unnecessary because of strong feedback already received and the Mayor and CEO advised that the CoPP are already working with the Boonwurrung Land and Sea Council to recognise local indigenous history. 

It is somewhat strange that this labor councillor would continue with such a motion that was spoken against by 100% of the large gallery in attendance. The Age survey also showed that 66% of people wanted the statue back in place and the Herald Sun survey showed 95% wanted immediate reinstatement. The community of the Boonwurrung people believe that this act should not be supported by further discussion. Is this a case of the individual ideology of one councillor being more important than the opinions of the Boonwurrung people and the community at large?  How can one justify such a position as democratic rather than divisive, given that it is clearly the well-worn path of wedge politics that was adopted in this case. 

Cr Rhonda Clark said, ‘Vandalism and criminal behaviour should not be rewarded or condoned by anyone in the community, no matter what you believe in’.  Cr Sirakoff said ‘We cannot allow vandals to get away with their actions. We need to send a strong message to vandals that removing the statue does not change our history. If we do not restore the statue then we are setting a precedent to allow vandals to tear down other monuments in the City of Port Phillip.’

Councillors agreed to reinstate the statue without conditions and voted down the amended motion with a division called. 

For: Baxter, Crawford, Martin and Nyaguy. 

Against: Bond, Clark, Cunsolo, Pearl, Sirakoff

The James Cook statue was erected and unveiled by Victorian State parliamentarians and St Kilda City Councillors in 1914 by the St Kilda council because of his services to maritime history and exploration.  The statue is heritage listed by the National Trust of Victoria.  

Jacinta Allen, the Victoria Premier has publicly supported the reinstatement of the Captain Cook statue, aligning with a vision that respects our collective history and heritage, advising we must stand against vandalism and for the rule of law, ensuring our public spaces and historical markers are respected.

In a shocking exposé by 9 News late last year, the City of Port Phillip came under scrutiny for rampant mismanagement, with a focus on the deplorable state of street cleaning and damning revelations about the conduct of the street cleaners themselves.

The laundry list of allegations paints a grim picture: a pervasive culture of laziness, wage rates soaring above those of comparable councils for similar work, staff getting paid for a full 8-hour shift while only clocking in 3 hours of actual work, and a suspicious dance of street cleaners loitering in parking spots like campers, moving just enough to escape scrutiny.

> Watch the Exposé by 9 News here

The whistleblowers who dared to lift the veil on these egregious practices were not hailed as heroes but instead shown the door by CoPP management. When a council resorts to silencing its own truth-tellers and brands them troublemakers, it becomes imperative for us to rise against this injustice and ensure justice for both the whistleblowers and the victims of the reported malfeasance.

In such instances, whistle blowers need to support the case with meticulous documentation which becomes their shield. Every detail, every date must be recorded to fortify their stance and defend their actions against any challenges that may arise. Even though the whistle blowers were able to site numerous weekly instances in support of their case, they were treated with impunity by a management system that sought to hide its own troubling issues.

It is important to the community that a report of misbehaviour be highlighted by the whistleblowers, utilising all available avenues, be it through our own channels or by bringing in investigative bodies such as the media or regulatory authorities.  In this case their only option became the media. How sad this truth is!   

While reporting to the authorities may seem ideal, a cautionary note emerges when the authority in question is the very council under scrutiny. In such cases, expecting them to impartially investigate their own wrongdoings is as futile as expecting a fox to guard the henhouse. Public awareness then becomes our most potent weapon, shining a relentless spotlight on the issue and mobilising action to address the rot within.

Time and again, public pressure has proven to be the catalyst for awakening the dormant conscience of council public servants. It is paramount that we acknowledge whistleblowing as a cornerstone for upholding ethical standards and legality within organisations. To foster a culture of accountability, we must prioritise the protection of whistleblowers, ensuring they can expose wrongdoing without fear of vindictive reprisals. In the battle for transparency and integrity, their voices must be heard, and the cloak of secrecy surrounding council misdeeds must be forcefully torn away.

December saw a flurry of news reports both in print and television on the City of Port Phillip’s initiative to encourage new businesses to Acland Street through a rent assistance programme. The programme is to target 5 to 10 businesses in Acland Street for up to 12 months. Let’s hope this new initiative goes a long way to attract new vibrant businesses and revitalise Acland Street. 

Port Phillip Matters has been advocating for a renewal programme for many years in Acland Street, including a masterplan for all the CoPP retail precincts. A masterplan creates consistency and sensible long-term planning and investment in our retail hubs throughout Port Phillip. Sadly, we do not have one.

Finally, however, the CoPP appears to be getting its act together and acknowledge that there is a major problem in Acland Street. And with the highest retail vacancy of any strip at 27.5% in the last twenty years, you must ask what took them so long to do something?

The rental assistance programme comes off the back of a similar exercise done in Fitzroy Street, which Council claims has had positive results. While any initiative that can renew Acland Street is to be welcomed, we should also strip away the ‘spin’ by Council of the benefits of such a programme. If we look at the Fitzroy Steet experience, the conclusion drawn is one of mixed results.

As one business owner in Fitzroy Street stated, “It was refreshing and cute to have some of these ‘cottage’ businesses in the first year of renewal but some of these ideas were like something one would see as a large school fete and didn’t really have legs to sustain a commercial business”.

As the programme winds down so do many of the businesses stuck with the reality that their business cannot survive without cheap or non-existent rental arrangements. This appears to be the case in Fitzroy Street. The subsidy dries up and so do many of the businesses reliant on that subsidy.

The reality is that if these businesses are not viable enough long term, that is able to pay their own way, they will be there only if they are subsidised and no more.

An Officer of CoPP has spruiked the idea that the programme should be targeting a diverse and eclectic group of businesses to improve the shopping experience and importantly not act in direct competition with existing retailers. While this in theory sounds promising, market forces determine the long-term viability of a business and where they operate from. That is, the offering must be strong enough to survive post-council subsidy, otherwise it’s just a short-term burn of valuable targeted rate payer money. 

Similarly, we should always be careful about interfering with market forces especially with subsidies which often create sub-optimal business acumen. Experience in Fitzroy Street suggests that an effective no cost rental arrangement meant that subsidised retailers had not the same incentive to open at regular hours, especially on cold days. Nor did many of the subsidised businesses feel they had to take responsibility for marketing their retail businesses. Real world business was substituted for a social workshop construct.

The point being is that any new business chosen for the subsidy scheme, should be selected on commerciality and long-term viability.

Finally in the flurry of news, we saw all sorts of reasons furnished for Acland Streets problems from high retail rentals to Covid 19. The reality is that much, if not all Acland’s streets problems, relate to the forced introduction of the tram mall which overnight stifled traffic into what was once a thriving retail hub - a decision that CoPP must also wear responsibility for. Some Councillors gloss over this inconvenient truth, blaming high rentals for the vacancy rate, ignoring the fact that rentals for most vacant shops in Acland Street have fallen 40% plus from their highs.

Message to Councillors

The programme is a good start if properly managed, but it’s not the panacea for Acland Street. An overarching long term master plan for all our retail strips is where CoPP should be focusing on. The current initiative may however, look good on your CVs in an election year and cover a few of the cracks in Acland Street. 

Sadly, for the estimated $200,000 being spent on this initiative in a Council war chest of over $160 million, it’s small beer and won’t stop the usual suspects among you wanting to push up our rates further in 2025. That’s a given!

Killing off Christmas

What’s happened to Christmas in Port Phillip ? Our bah humbug WOKE incrusted council bureaucrats have finally gone too far. Where are our retail streets Christmas decorations? Who is responsible for this do nothing Scrooge like decision to ignore the celebration of Christmas? 

Ignoring this major celebration in our yearly calendar should be considered an unforgivable sin. These mouldy green, leftie public servants should be looking after the interests of all the community and not following their own twisted WOKE ideologies. They have killed off the spirit of Christmas, but for what benefit? 

Our surrounding suburbs streets are adorned with home decorations celebrating this happy occasion, which brings families together. Clear evidence of our community’s embrace of this special time of the year, but totally and deliberately ignored by council. A council that gouges $213m in rates and charges, parking fees, fines and other user fees each year and gives very little in return.

Families from all denominations and cultures love this special time of the year. Everyone that migrates to our country happily embraces this joyous celebration. But not our public servants that live in their own self-righteous universe of misery. I hope that these bureaucratic grinches are not taking the time off work and are not celebrating Christmas at home. 

It’s time for our community to make a stand and rid our council of this WOKE WITCHCRAFT that has come over our out-of-touch miserable bureaucrats.

Clearly our council is not fit for purpose, is out of touch with community needs, is politically and ideologically biased and needs to be sacked, put in Santa's sleigh and dropped off at the North Pole to learn what the real spirit of Christmas is all about.

Channel 9 News aired serious allegations against poor management at the City of Port Phillip. The issue was street cleaning and in particular allegations against the street cleaners. Allegations including, 

• a lazy culture,
• wage rates above average Councils for similar work,
• staff being paid for 9 hours but working only 3 hours,
• a round robin of parking in the streets doing nothing for a short time then moving to another parking spot to avoid suspicion.

>> Watch 9News report here 

When I watched the report, the first thought was not only was I not surprised, but that it explained why they were often parking in my street as well, doing nothing. And then you think of so many other ratepayers who have similar stories to tell and you realise that there is possibly something to the 9News Report.

Within 24 hours of the news report some of our Councillors made statements including on Facebook in response to the allegations. Mayor Cunsolo stated:

“The accusations made by an ex-staff member and ex-contractor on Channel 9 last night do not align with Council’s strong culture of customer service, performance accountability and value for money. The vast majority of Council’s operational staff work diligently to ensure our city is clean and safe, and Council responds appropriately where this is not the case. If residents or other members of the public have concerns about work not being completed, we encourage them to report this to us and we will investigate as a priority.”

Cr Bond, decided to focus on the two whistleblowers with some knowledge of their “popularity” at the depot and performances at employment tribunals. He then suggests that the Channel 9 report had no substance, stating “All of our trucks have GPS tracking, so any activity as there described is uncovered fairly quickly and dealt with if and when it occurs.” The problem with that statement is that it’s only valid if indeed someone in authority wants to look at the data.

The problem with the responses from both Councillors, is that they lead from a position of “nothing to see here” Councillors first and foremost have a duty to protect the rate payers’ interests. Not their own, nor their increasingly self-serving institution. Cr Bond choosing to defend the City of Port Phillip by suggesting that the whistleblowers themselves may be the real issue, does not instill any confidence that City Hall is on top of this matter. Some might even argue it’s just a form of scapegoating.

A proper response to the allegations should have been something like this. 

“The allegations raised in the Channel 9 News report are concerning. We are currently unaware of any of the outlined practices as stated in that report going on within the City of Port Phillip. We will be seeking an immediate inquiry into the allegations and on completion, release the findings to the residents.” 

This would have been the transparent, governance orientated approach as opposed to the tiresome political speak, so often now contaminating our local councils. 

The Challenge to Mayor Cunsolo and Councillor Bond!

Now here is the challenge to at least demonstrate a modicum of civic responsibility.

Seek a resolution through Council to refer the street cleaner allegations in the Channel 9 News Report to the independent audit and risk member at the City of Port Phillip. Give the independent audit member a wide term of reference including access to the GPS equipment. And importantly pledge that the findings will be made public on completion of the report.

The Middle Park Hotel development was at Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal (VCAT) last week, after another 4 days, a further 3 days have been scheduled for 13th to 15th March 2024. 

VCAT Tribunal Members described multiple times the dynamic as 'complex', they are acutely aware of the case's public profile, that the issue is 'highly contentious' and its importance to the Middle Park community.

Example highlights last week:

• Under cross examination AVC's acoustic expert divulged that he was told by his client, AVC, that the rooftop was intended as a 'sports bar' - not a 'food led, high quality dining experience' as communicated to Council and national media.
• AVC's submitted plans fail to adequately explain how a new roof terrace will sit directly on top of the existing pitched roof structure - no engineering solution provided.
• PMPV submitted into evidence expert covert undercover surveillance material regarding the majority of AVC's other Melbourne rooftop bars - not one single piece of food to be seen at other AVC venues - only loud music and alcohol being consumed by 18-30 year olds.
• AVC / MPH had been operating unlawfully since the end of June - no valid permit for the MPH pavement area. The Middle Park Hotel, despite knowledge of this fact, has declined to close this area temporarily. (Editor's note: MPH received a valid permit within 24 hours of the complaint).

Thank you to local residents who attended in person.

In the bustling beachfront of St Kilda, a contentious debate echoes over the proposed development of a new 5,000-person live music venue. The Port Phillip council on December 6 voted in favour of “advocating to the Victorian Government for investment in a business case for a new live music and performance venue on the St Kilda Triangle with a possible contribution from Council to be confirmed”. The Council supported by sectors of the music industry and St Kilda business owners championing this venture, envisions it as a modern indoor entertainment venue designed to enhance Melbourne's vibrant cultural scene while simultaneously stimulating the local economy. With plans for a flat floor to facilitate dancing, and a series of elevated terraces, the venue aims to be more than just a musical hub; it's pitched as a catalyst for economic rejuvenation and jobs creation following the pandemic years.

However, the project, with its potential price tag ranging between $113M and $139M, hits a discordant note in terms of financial feasibility. The council, having already invested $515,000 in preliminary studies, finds itself in a fiscal quagmire. Last night’s motion allocated additional funding of up to $110,000 rather than the $400,000 recommended by Officers to secure state government funding or private investment to fund the project. A number of speakers at the Council meeting estimated that Council has spent between $10M and $20M on plans for the Triangle.  

The site, a car park adjacent to Luna Park and the Palais Theatre, has long been a battleground for development debates. The latest proposal has reopened old fissures in the community. Proponents argue that the venue would provide a much-needed fillip to local businesses and the job market. The recent success of concerts at the Palais Theatre, attracting thousands and benefiting nearby establishments, serves as a testament to this potential.

Contrastingly, local groups like Unchain, Luna Park and foreshore businesses vociferously oppose the project, citing concerns over the loss of parking amenities and potential environmental issues, including contaminated soil. Their argument is not just about preserving the status quo but about prioritizing essential services over entertainment luxuries in times of economic stringency.

The involvement of major music promoters in the feasibility study, such as Live Nation and TEG Dainty, adds a layer of complexity. While they identify a gap in Melbourne's music venue landscape that the new site could fill, there are apprehensions about the monopolization of the venue, potentially sidelining local acts in favor of more commercially lucrative ones.

Supporters like Jenni Roper, a local resident, and Andrew Ryan, owner of the nearby music venue The Prince, view the development as a beacon of progress, capable of reviving St Kilda's live music scene. They argue that the project, far from being a financial sinkhole, could be a strategic investment in the cultural and economic future of the area.

The St Kilda Triangle proposal thus sits at a crossroads of cultural ambition and fiscal prudence. The council's challenge is to harmonize the melody of economic stimulation with the baseline of community concerns and environmental stewardship. Whether this project will crescendo into a triumphant symphony for St Kilda or descend into a cacophony of unmet expectations remains to be seen. The next move, it seems, is for the state government and potential investors, whose funding decisions will either elevate this project to a grand opening or relegate it to the archives of unrealized plans.

Great news is brewing for Acland Street and St Kilda! A series of new initiatives and establishments are set to breathe fresh life into this beloved area.

Revitalising the Local Business Scene:

Encouraging the local community to shop and spend time in Acland and Fitzroy Streets is essential. By reducing crime and improving the overall appeal of the area, we can attract families and individuals who currently prefer Elwood or Albert Park high streets. Filling up vacant shops and creating a safe, welcoming environment are critical steps in this revitalisation effort.

New Additions and Exciting Developments

• Culinary Delights: The recent opening of 'Jaggers', a Spanish cuisine gem, is a nod to the South American community enriching our city. This move is part of a broader vision to infuse Acland Plaza and St Kilda with a Latin flair, offering live music and a culture-rich atmosphere beyond just alcohol-based venues.
• Retail and Dining: The addition of 'Hello Harry', a classic burger joint, and 'Yo-bar', a frozen yoghurt and acai bowl spot, add to the diverse food options.
• Acland Court Shopping Centre: The newly renovated centre, complete with Tesla charging stations, is attracting more visitors. It’s home to a family-owned florist, homeware store, and the 'Wholefoods' store for organic produce. This success story exemplifies the benefits of thoughtful planning and experienced retail management.
• Cotton On: a new store for St Kilda, a casualwear chain featuring trendy fashions for men, women & children, plus home-decor items

Italian Flair in St Kilda

• Cicciolina: This modern Italian restaurant offers a unique dining experience with its contemporary setting and eclectic art.
• Piccolina Gelateria: A top-rated gelato shop using only the best seasonal ingredients.
• Sorsi e Morsi: Known for its authentic Italian cuisine and welcoming atmosphere.
• i Carusi II: A hidden gem offering some of Melbourne's finest Neapolitan-style pizzas.

Cultural and Retail Tapestry

• Iconic Cakes and Multiculturalism: The historic cake shops of Acland Street are not just about desserts; they represent the multicultural fabric and entrepreneurial spirit of Australia.
• The Chakra Store: An iconic store among many independent clothing shops perfect for unique gifts.
• The Lady of St Kilda: This bar/restaurant is a testament to healthy Mediterranean cuisine, known for making their own Pita bread.

Diverse Dining Experiences

• Rococo Restaurant: A local favorite for seafood spaghetti.
• Vegan Sisters of Soul: Offering a serene spot with delicious vegan options.
• Banyan Tree Indian Restaurant: A must-visit for butter chicken enthusiasts.
• Scent of Thai: Authentic Thai cuisine with a welcoming ambiance.
• Burrito Bayside, RadioMexico, and Juana Taco: For those craving Mexican flavours.
• The Galleon Cafe: A retro café and a St Kilda institution.
• Abbey Road Cafe:  blend of fresh, homestyle food and soul-moving music, inspired by Greek Cypriot heritage.

A Vision for Acland Street's Future

• Establish a Weekly Fish Market: Introducing a vibrant fish market at the plaza each week can become a focal point for fresh, local produce, attracting both residents and visitors.
• Urban Greening Initiative: Following Melbourne city's example, we propose a 'greening' project for Acland Street. This would involve planting more trees and creating green spaces, making the street more inviting and environmentally friendly.
• Professional Urban Retail Planning: It's time to utilise our ratepayers' funds more effectively by engaging with expert urban retail planners. This investment will ensure a more strategic and community-focused development of our retail spaces.

Ensuring A Vibrant Local Economy Throughout the Week

While occasional events like a thriving Sunday market or the Triangle live events bring temporary buzz, it's crucial that we create an environment where local businesses thrive all week long. The key is to cater to the needs and preferences of local residents, ensuring a steady flow of patronage and support.

Vacant Shop Program is coming to Acland Precinct

In partnership with the City Of Port Phillip, Project Management & Consultancy in conjunction with Ginnane & Associates, are activating vacant shopfronts with the goal of increasing the vibrancy and foot traffic of this this iconic street and community. The aim is to attract and foster new tenancies that become long-term leasing opportunities, to ensure the precinct remains a high performing business destination.

They're looking for applicants who have a genuine interest and knowledge of the St Kilda precinct and will complement, not compete, with other businesses.

Interested? Or know of someone who would be? Head here for more details, FAQs and application form https://plan1pmc.com/acland-street-activation

________________________

Note: this is only a sample of the varieties of Acland Street and does not do justice to all the other amazing traders! It's also worth pointing out that this story is not a paid advertisement.

At the recent Port Phillip City Council meeting at St. Kilda Town Hall on December 6th, the long-awaited Queens Lane Traffic and Parking Review was presented. Despite prior requests by the Queens Lane Resident Action Group (QLRAG) for early access to the document, the Council neither acknowledged these requests nor provided the Review in advance. This lack of communication forced us, as representatives of QLRAG, to respond to the Review within a constrained two-minute timeframe without prior examination.

It's important to recognize the timeline leading to this Review's publication. For seven years, no significant changes have been made to improve traffic flow at Queens Lane and Kings Way, leading to the current chaotic situation. Despite the Council's decision in December 2021 to prepare a report within 12 months to assess Queens Lane's functionality, the Review was delayed and only tabled in December 2023. Throughout the past year, QLRAG has actively sought solutions to the acknowledged traffic and safety issues, often facing communication challenges with the Council.

The Review frequently notes the limited options available to the Council due to external factors. However, Queens Lane, between Hanna St. and Kings Way, falls under Council jurisdiction, making them responsible for road safety. The increase in development and heavy traffic continues to exacerbate congestion. Notably, the Council has neglected to consult the community on Construction Traffic Management Plans or broader traffic management strategies.

Council's reliance on a 2016 study, which dismissed concerns about Queens Lane being used as a "Rat Run," seems increasingly questionable seven years later. Although our early analysis of the Review is marked by disappointment, particularly at the missed opportunities and slow progress, we acknowledge the inclusion of one of our recommendations: the installation of speed limit signs in the Queens Lane precinct.

The Review's recommendations were approved for potential inclusion in the 2024/2025 Budget, but given past experiences, we remain skeptical about actual implementation. The Council's projected timeline and vague promises of future community consultation further contribute to our frustration.

Finally, the Review's recommendations for improving pedestrian safety and managing construction impacts are inadequate. The lack of communication and community engagement from the Council will likely result in continued discontent among residents, who are increasingly frustrated with the slow pace and lack of substantial action.

In Victoria, local government, a sector encompassing over 50,000 employees, stands at a crossroads. The findings of the survey by Associate Professor Mark Chou, Dr. Rachel Busbridge, and Dr. Serrin Rutledge-Prior (2023) from the Australian Catholic University and Australian National University, offer their understanding of public expectations. Yet, juxtaposed against the prevalent culture of leadership in local councils, a stark contrast emerges.

At its core, local government is meant to be the custodian of community assets and a provider of essential services. However, an alarming trend has surfaced: the outsourcing or abandonment of fundamental services. The shift away from managing basic services like rubbish collection, street cleaning, and the running of pools and sports centres undermines the very essence of local governance.

The survey reveals a logical inconsistency that captures the crux of the current debate around the role of local government. On one hand, a substantial 70% of the population believes local government should focus ONLY on basic services like road maintenance and rubbish collection. Yet, paradoxically, over 80% also feel that local government should actively shape local identity and culture, and provide a platform for national discourse. This dichotomy underscores a complex public expectation.

Additionally, findings from Chou et al. stand uncomfortably next to the recently released “Perceptions of Local Government” report from Council Watch. (See the findings Summary in table 1 below) 

Table 1: Findings Summary from Council Watch Survey

The table reflects public perceptions of the roles local government should prioritise. Roads and footpaths top the list, with 90% and 85% respectively, indicating a strong public desire for local government to focus on these fundamental services. Parks and gardens, libraries, and aged care also receive substantial importance, with over 50% ranking. However, areas like environment and climate change, and equality/diversity/LGBTQIA+ matters, are deemed less critical, with only 13% and 4% ranking respectively.

These findings underscore a narrative for local government to "stick to their knitting," concentrating on core services that are traditionally within their purview and directly impact daily community life. The data suggests a significant portion of the populace may view the foray into broader social issues as overreach, potentially diverting attention and resources away from fundamental public services. 

A council leadership crisis extends beyond operational decisions. Senior council officers, wielding significant decision-making power, often lack the necessary qualifications and experience to handle complex, capital-intensive projects. Decisions made by these bureaucrats often lack a factual basis, driven instead by personal bias and political agendas. This disconnect between senior officers and community needs has led to a series of contentious decisions, from the removal of gas cooking and wood fires to the implementation of impractical bike lanes. 

Moreover, the culture within these councils is one of avoiding accountability. Senior officers are seen as shutting down any questions from the community, councillors, or media, creating an environment where dissent is not tolerated. This approach not only alienates the community but also undermines the democratic principles on which local government is founded.

Chou et al. findings, advocating for an expanded role of local government in societal and political issues, clash with the current operational realities. While the public may desire a broader scope for local councils, the existing leadership structure and priorities seem ill-equipped to handle such an expansion responsibly. The focus of senior officers on expensive project pipelines and innovative, socially progressive policies often comes at the expense of addressing the immediate and practical needs of the community.

Residents, primarily concerned with roads, parks, pools, and libraries, are increasingly finding themselves unheard and underrepresented. The perception of local government is at its lowest, with a growing disconnect between the sector and the people it is supposed to serve. This situation calls for a radical overhaul of the leadership within local councils, prioritising transparency, accountability, and a refocusing on core services.

The survey by Chou et al. highlights the evolving expectations of the public towards local government. However, juxtaposed against the current leadership crisis within local councils, it becomes evident that a significant transformation is required. Local government must return to its roots, focusing on being a custodian of community assets and a provider of essential services. Only then can it effectively meet the needs and expectations of the communities it serves.

The City of Port Phillip is currently navigating a complex and transformative period in its aged care services, spurred on by the impending implementation of the Commonwealth's aged care reforms. These changes, as detailed in the recent Council meeting on February 7, 2024, reflect a substantial shift in the approach to aged care delivery, directly impacting the local community and its elderly residents.

The Council's response to these reforms is encapsulated in its proposed "Village Model," a service delivery model developed to adapt to the changing aged care landscape. This model arises from the key findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and is shaped by the need to transition from the Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP) to the Support at Home Program (SHP). The SHP aims to unify various care programs, offering increased client choice and control, individualised funding, and consistent national assessment and service provision.

This strategic shift acknowledges the Council's current limitations in scale, operational efficiencies, and clinical capabilities to meet the demands of the new SHP. The Village Model proposes to continue providing some Commonwealth funded services such as group social support, transportation, and delivered meals. However, it also plans to transition other services, including domestic assistance, personal care, and respite care, to specialist aged care providers better suited to meet the new requirements.

A cornerstone of the Village Model is the introduction of a Community Connector service. This service aims to assist older residents in transitioning to new care arrangements, emphasising the continuity of care and connection to local services. Feedback from community consultations and engagement activities highlights the critical role this service will play in ensuring the successful implementation of the Village Model.

The Council's approach reflects a commitment to supporting its aging population while adapting to a more competitive and demanding aged care environment. The consultation process, involving clients, staff, advisory committees, and community groups, has provided valuable insights into the community's needs and concerns. Key themes emerging from these consultations include the importance of quality assurance, managing the impact on staff and client relationships, affordability of services, and effective transition management.

Financially, the Council faces challenges in aligning its service delivery with the shifting funding landscape. The proposed model assumes efficiency gains and cost recovery for externally funded services, which will need careful management to ensure sustainability.

The implications of these changes are far-reaching. The community is understandably concerned about the impact on current clients, especially given the proposed changes to in-home services. The Council's detailed planning and engagement with the Commonwealth Government aims to ensure that transitions are smooth and that continuity of care is maintained.

The City of Port Phillip's response to the aged care reforms is a carefully considered strategy that seeks to balance the practical realities of changing funding models and regulatory requirements with the community's needs and values. As the Council moves towards implementing the Village Model, it will remain focused on supporting older residents to age positively within the community, upholding its commitment to inclusive and effective aged care services.

Council proposes to invest in a Community Connector service for an initial 12 to 18 month period to assist older people transition from their existing programs to a number of services including:

• The new Support at Home Program
• The My Aged Care program 
• Council, and locally provided services already mentioned, and most importantly,
• The maintenance of continuity of care with no gap in the overall services for all clients.

Council are expected to vote on adopting the Aged Care proposal in the near future given the 1 July 2024 deadline to transition to the new Commonwealth funding arrangements.

Port Phillip Council has acquired a commercial site in Fishermans Bend for $38.8 million, currently occupied by Australia Post. The 509 Williamstown Road site is adjacent to popular North Port Oval and is currently occupied by Australia Post. 

The 15,000-square-metre site will be developed for public space and a much needed sport oval and recreation facilities.

According to Port Phillip Council, Fishermans Bend is Australia’s largest urban renewal area with 10,000 housing unit developments delivered or in the pipeline and projected to be home to 80,000 residents by 2050.

“This future-proofing investment will allow the Fishermans Bend community to enjoy sport, walk their dogs or simply relax under a tree,” Mayor Heather Cunsolo said in a Press Release. “We want to create a special space that helps Australia’s largest urban renewal project live up to its amazing potential.”

Source of Image: Australian Property Journal https://www.australianpropertyjournal.com.au/2023/12/18/council-reels-in-auspost-fishermans-bend-site/

Port Phillip has committed to seeking feedback from residents and stakeholders including local sporting groups prior to development of the site. 

The CoPP are considering expanding the existing North Port Oval to include the Australia Post site and, eventually, incorporate, the adjoining Bunnings and DHL sites. 

The CoPP purchase of the site aligns with the Victorian Government’s Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area Development Contributions Plan | Engage Victoria and will assist to achieve much needed open space to meet the needs of 80,000 new residents in Fishermans Bend. Port Phillip Council endorsed a preliminary submission late last year.

Council undertook an independent valuation as part of the due diligence before the purchase and reported that the purchase price of $38.8 million (excluding GST) represents market prices and is fair value for residents.

Attribution: Port Phillip Council Press Release 

The Port Phillip City Council's meeting on December 6, 2023, turned into a fervent forum for local voices with more than twenty residents and traders asked questions regarding their deep concerns over the proposed Inkerman Street bike lanes. Residents were responding to bicycle lane design options which were published for community feedback. Council will collate the feedback and vote on the matter in early 2024. The design options intend to promote sustainable transport, faced scrutiny for its potential impact on parking, local businesses, and community safety.

Residents highlighted the reduction of up to 116 vital parking spaces and the challenges this would pose for businesses, fearing a decline in customer visits and trade. Concerns about access for deliveries and tradespeople were also raised, emphasising the practical necessities for the smooth operation of local enterprises.

Another significant issue was the plan's impact on waste management. The proposed bike lanes, according to the community, could complicate essential services such as garbage collection, disrupting the neighborhood's routine.

Safety concerns were paramount, especially for vulnerable groups like people with mobility difficulties, the elderly and children. The community questioned the council's safety measures, advocating for the protection of these groups amidst the proposed changes.

Council officers responses were seen as insufficient, leading to the intervention of the council's CEO who reassured residents that their feedback would be taken into consideration before the final decision is made. The CEO indicated there were around 1,000 responses for the Inkerman Street survey compared to about 200 for the St Kilda Triangle music venue proposal, indicating significantly more community engagement over the Inkerman Street controversy. This highlighted the need for a more inclusive approach in urban planning, considering the community's needs and concerns.

This meeting underscored the challenges urban councils face in balancing traffic management with community interests. The Inkerman Street proposal, while promoting sustainable transportation, revealed a need for a more empathetic approach to change. The council now faces the task of reconciling these concerns with the goal of sustainable development.

The council must now navigate these concerns carefully, ensuring that any future plans align with the community's needs and aspirations.

In a recent meeting of the Port Phillip City Council, the councillors and community members delved into several critical local matters, showcasing the council's commitment to addressing the diverse needs and concerns of its constituents.

Vibrant Cultural Development: The St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue

The meeting opened with a lively discussion about the proposed St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue. Residents and councillors expressed their thoughts on the project, which is seen as a potential boost to the local cultural landscape. The debate highlighted the community's enthusiasm for a vibrant music scene while acknowledging the need for careful planning to ensure the venue's integration into the area's fabric.

Gasworks Arts Park - A Vision for the Future

Another focal point was the future of the Gasworks Arts Park. The council reviewed several public submissions, each presenting unique perspectives on the site's proposed development plan. The submissions ranged from concerns about maintaining the park's historical significance to ideas for enhancing its role as a communal cultural hub. The council's discussion reflected a delicate balance between preserving heritage and embracing modernity.

Community Safety and Infrastructure: Queens Lane Traffic and Parking Review

Addressing everyday quality of life concerns, the council delved into the Queens Lane Traffic and Parking review. This segment underscored the council's dedication to enhancing local infrastructure for better community safety and accessibility. Discussions revolved around optimising traffic flow and parking solutions to meet the residents' needs.

Sustainable Urban Growth: Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan

In a significant move towards sustainable urban development, the council examined the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan. This plan is pivotal in guiding the area's growth while ensuring that development is environmentally sustainable and meets the community's long-term needs. The council's engagement with this plan underscores its commitment to responsible urban planning.

Public Engagement and Councillor Queries

The meeting also featured active public engagement, with residents presenting submissions on various issues, highlighting the community's involvement in local governance. Additionally, councillors raised questions and motions, further demonstrating the dynamic and responsive nature of the council's decision-making process.

____________________________________________________

Do you keep an eye on your local council's activities

Ever wondered what goes on at council meetings?

• To see the agenda and documents presented at the most recent 6 December 2023 meeting click here 
• To request to speak at the next council meeting click here
• To watch live, streamed video of the next meeting (or archived video of previous meetings) click here

Last week for feedback on Inkerman Street Bike Lane Proposal

Clearly the persons formulating the City of Port Phillip 'Have Your Say' survey on the Inkerman Street Improvement Project, have never heard of social desirability bias. This bias is one of the most common in surveys and reflects respondents' desire to answer a question in a way they believe is morally or socially preferable. 

Council have presented the community with this survey, telling them Option A will have the safest outcome for all road users (which is highly questionable if north side residents are forced to run the gauntlet over busy Inkerman Street after all their parking has been removed) and Option B will have the second safest outcome. For this reason alone, most respondents will automatically vote for Option A without stopping to consider any additional real-world impacts (particularly negative) that Option A might have. 

The survey is socially engineered in favour of Option A and is inherently biased towards this option.

The Bicycle Users Group of Port Phillip (BUG) and other Victorian cycling lobby groups have large membership numbers, are mobilised and extremely vocal (understandably) about improving bike safety; as is their right. These organisations have regular meetings, newsletters, Facebook sites and networks the small traders and residents on our street can never hope to match in size or reach. We have been made aware of calls to vote for Option A being published to members of these clubs, however they are not the ratepayers, residents and small businesses on and around our street, who stand to lose the most if Option A gets up. There is no mention anywhere, within their ‘Vote A’ campaigns, of any potential negative impacts to any entity whatsoever.  

This is just another example of the clear bias in Council's survey, i.e. sampling bias, in which samples are collected in such a way that some members of the intended population have a lower or higher sampling probability than others. This bias is another of the four most common in surveys. Two out of four for the City of Port Phillip - how was this even allowed to happen?

And let’s also consider for a moment, the fact Council have turned this alleged ‘consultation process’ into a Vote. This is NOT consultation. They have forced people to vote for one of two options – A or B (after effectively encouraging them to vote for A). 

After complaints from community members who did not like, or want, to vote for either option, they changed the process so people could skip this question and move ahead to the free text box, where they could provide feedback. HOWEVER… nowhere was this change advertised on the Option A or Option B question page;  i.e. ‘You may skip this question’ or ‘You do not have to vote for either option if you don’t want either’ etc. 

Now (allegedly) any recently allowed votes for ‘neither option’ will be counted separately by Council; handing them the perfect excuse to split the vote. 

With only one week to go in the ‘consultation process’, we’ve had the Bicycle Users Group (BUG) of Port Phillip spruiking the merits of Option A and currying favour with Councillors for all they’re worth. We’ve seen community cycling events (bike ride down Inkerman anyone?), photo opportunities with Councillors and pollies, including Sam Hibbins, pushing the agenda hard. Make no mistake this is political, and the dice aren't loaded in favour of the residents, ratepayers and small traders on Inkerman Street.

Some in our collective have, predictably, been publicly trolled and accused of being bike haters (or worse) by members of this group. One in particular, openly ridiculed Inkerman Street as “hardly a thriving commercial centre in any case”, which I found deeply offensive. There are almost 50 small traders in the tiny 1.2km stretch of road subjected to Council’s current scrutiny; perhaps this person would rather see our street full of McDonalds or 7-Elevens? We pride ourselves on our shop-small, shop local ethos and rely heavily on our drive-up trade, and access for our regular deliveries and pick-ups.

The same troll states ‘parked cars do not generate business, despite what they believe’.  Clearly he has never visited Bunnings, Coles or Costco! Our clients being able to park near our businesses, are what brings their business to us. Take that, and you take our livelihood. 

PLEASE VOTE FOR OPTION B which will deliver the safe bike lanes and upgraded pedestrian options needed, as well as saving access and amenity for the disabled, mobility impaired and elderly members of our community, along with residents, ratepayers and small traders on and around Inkerman Street.  

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

say NO to Option A

>> Download Petition - Inkerman Street Improvement Project.pdf

Jaz Bradley

The collaborative efforts of Albert Park College (APC), the Victorian College of the Arts Secondary School (VCASS), and the Victorian School Building Authority (VSBA) have given rise to an ambitious initiative—the Victorian Youth Arts Precinct. 

This transformative project seeks to establish a world-class facility dedicated to cultivating the talents of young artists and future professionals in the creative industries. Envisaged by Graham Burrows of Jackson Clements Burrows Architects, the precinct will feature cutting-edge amenities, including major and studio theatres, training and rehearsal spaces, exhibition areas, and the latest advancements in lighting, audio, digital projection, 3D, and stage technologies. The architectural vision places a strong emphasis on integrating with the site's heritage, with a transparent floating roof symbolising the harmonious fusion of the old and the new.

As a concerned parent with children attending APC, residing in South Melbourne, and a frequent user of Gas Works Park for dog walking and exercise, I am writing to express my wholehearted support for APC's commitment to developing facilities that possess architectural integrity and seamlessly complement the built environment.

However, I am compelled to address a matter of concern—opposition from a small minority of residents seeking to retain the full height of the 1950s orange brick wall that separates Albert Park College's new Youth Arts Precinct from Gasworks Arts Park. 

I firmly advocate for the Council to allow the VSBA to reduce the wall height for the following reasons. Firstly, the wall, dating back to the 1950s, lacks heritage value and detracts from the forward-looking design. Secondly, its full height makes it susceptible to graffiti, is adorned with razor wire, and stands as a conspicuous eyesore, inconsistent with the aesthetics expected in a public park or community facility. Thirdly, the towering structure poses significant security and safety risks by obstructing the public view of the Arts Precinct, thus violating council planning guidelines. Lastly, maintaining the full height of the wall hinders the new facility from fully integrating with the community and limits the expansion of the park's open space.

In light of these concerns, I request the Council to stand in solidarity with the school's vision and broader community and advocate for a lower wall. This approach not only aligns with the broader goals of the Youth Arts Precinct but also contributes to the enhancement of Gas Works Park, ensuring it remains a welcoming and integrated space within the community.

Learn more about this wonderful project here: https://www.vicyouthartsprecinct.com…and the great wall of graffiti:

City of Port Phillip has demonstrated a blinkered policy on its pursuit of protected bike paths which overrides public safety and demonstrates another waste of ratepayers money.

On several occasions Fire Brigades traveling east in Park Street between Kingsway and Moray Street and with traffic banked because of the protected bike path have been observed having to travel in the west bound traffic lane which may have had oncoming traffic turning left off Kings Way and may have resulted in a serious accident causing serious injury or death. Fortunately, this has not occurred but is an accident waiting to happen. 

There are also occasions with the parking spaces being located on the outside of the protected bike paths, that mothers have at times had extreme difficulty in taking small children from their car and making their way to the footpath. Instances have been observed where other children riding in the car, particularly toddlers cannot be safely restrained on the grass verge, while smaller children are assisted from the car.

Having drawn all of this to Council’s  attention, this is the response from the Transport Projects department:

“Park Street Temporary Bike Lane – Kings Way to Moray Street

I understand that you have concerns about the safety of the bike lane and parking arrangements in Park Street west of Kings Way. I would like to assure you that independent Road Safety Audits have been undertaken prior to and post installation of the bike lane, as per the guidelines of VicRoads. These audits have been reviewed by Council’s Transport Safety Team and did not  identify any significant safety issues or risks for any road users, including emergency vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. Council continues to monitor the installation and its impacts on traffic flow and road safety and will make adjustments as needed based on feedback received and data collected.  

I also note your concerns related to drivers exiting vehicles, please note that the buffers between parked cars and the bike lane are significantly wider than the VicRoad guidelines allowing for additional space to exit vehicles and safely cross the bike lane. 

Emergency Services

I note your concerns and observations related to Emergency Services use the opposing road lane during times of congestion, this occurs throughout the inner suburbs of Melbourne. To mitigate risks to road users, there are specific road rules / laws associated with interactions with Emergency Service vehicles, in emergencies, law enforcement and other emergency vehicles are not required to follow the road rules. If a police, emergency, enforcement or escort vehicle has its red, blue or magenta lights flashing or its siren on, drivers must:

• Get out of its way / provide a clear path for the emergency vehicle 
• Give way and stop if necessary, even if you have a green traffic light.

It is the responsibility of road users to adhere to these road rules with VicPol the enforcing authority.”   

Councillors are aware of the safety concerns and it seems that they have relied on Officer’s advice to deny there is a problem with public safety and the danger they have created. Residents should let them know that this uncaring attitude is not acceptable.

Further, with protected bike paths having been constructed in the parallel Albert Road and with the Shrine to Sea project presumably extending over Kings Way, it seemed logical for the Council to review and dispense with the proposed protected bike lanes being duplicated in Park Street from St Kilda Road to Kings Way. Councillors and Council Officers have therefore been urged to review the Park Street Streetscape Improvement to remove the protected bike lanes. 

There is no doubt that the current proposal to construct protected bike lanes in Park Street, would not only be an unnecessary and costly duplication and remove a number of parking spaces and loading zones, but add to the major congestion that already occurs in Park Street. This will only become far worse when Anzac Station is completed and especially when Domain Road is again connected to Park Street.

That is not to say that beautification work on Park Street between Kingsway and St Kilda Road should not proceed. Everyone is in favour of this as it is presently a disgrace.

One should not overlook the congestion caused by the Accessible Tram Stop at the corner of Wells Street which is never going to be abated.  As there is no proposal to relocate it, protected bike paths will only add to this congestion and generally prevent outside dining.

And what does Transport Projects department have to say to his request:

“Park Street Streetscape Improvement and Councillor Decision Making

Please note that as elected representatives of the community, our Councillors have a challenging job in determining how best to proceed on projects. As a Co-convenor of G12+ you would be aware that there are a variety of views and perspectives within our community, and Councillors are charged with considering a range of items and balancing the needs of all members of the community when making decisions. 

There is a significant amount of work undertaken on projects prior to Councillors endorsing projects, including project briefings in which Councillors can seek or request additional information from officers. Please note that Councillors fully consider a broad range of items that impact the community, inclusive of community feedback, when making decisions on projects.

For example, the Park Street design went through two Council meetings prior to being released to the community for feedback. Councillors resolved not to release the initially tabled design, voting to request changes to the design that would better serve their community. These changes were undertaken prior to Councillors voting to release the designs for community feedback and ultimately endorsing the project. 

Council acknowledges that not all projects that receive endorsement are universally supported by the varied cross section of our community. Inevitable there will be community members that disagree with decisions made.”   

Given that the protected bike lanes in Albert Street had not been announced, let alone constructed at the time of the Council decision to proceed with the Park Street Streetscape Improvement incorporating protected bike paths, it seems to be irrelevant for City of Port Phillip. A review and the removal of the protected bike paths seems to be a logical revision, but not for our City of Port Phillip and it seems Councillors are determined to plough ahead.

Even if you are fully supportive of protected bike paths generally, this nonsensical duplication and expense should not proceed and you should write to your Councillors and let them know. Here are their contact details: https://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/about-the-council/who-we-are/your-councillors

Council have deferred a decision to permanently close the Bridge Street and Glover Street intersection on Pickles Street after a 12-month trial. The delay follows resident’s concerns about a motion to permanently close the intersection on the Council agenda on 15 November. 

Residents are seeking a better solution to improve safety and manage traffic flow at this intersection on Pickles Street in the interests of all users and to manage traffic speed in Pickles Street. Concerns have been raised about the Council’s evaluation report, recommendations, and the consultation process.  

Residents have informed Council staff of vehicles being driven over the median closure, making unsafe U turns at either end of the median closure to access both Bridge and Glover Streets, ‘Keep left’ signs being knocked down and increased danger for cyclists and pedestrians crossing the road at the median strip. 

It is surprising that none of these dangerous behaviours have been acknowledged in the evaluation report when the behaviours continue to be observed daily.

The evaluation report inexplicably states that “community members were encouraged to provide feedback on their experiences and perceptions of the changes introduced”. 

Some residents have called for the installation of traffic lights as a preferred solution to address safety concerns, but this option has not been considered in the Council evaluation, possibly because of cost.

Others suggested that the safety issues can be relieved by keeping Pickles Street open but removing the ability to turn right onto Pickles Street from Bridge Street and Glover Street. Residents could turn right at Liardet Street instead which has traffic lights enabling a safer turn across Pickles.

The Council evaluation indicated there had been no negative impact on adjacent Streets despite evidence to the contrary. Residents have observed that the modified intersection has created issues for residents in adjacent streets. Residents are concerned about access to Cruikshank Street which is one way towards the south to Liardet St from Bridge St and one way to the north from Bridge St towards Spring St East. This means a circular route may be required from any direction in order to enter Cruikshank St.

Before the right hand turn from Pickles into Bridge was blocked off, drivers coming from the north, could turn right into Bridge, then left into Cruikshank as well as by turning right from Bridge St coming from the west. Now drivers from the north have to go south down Pickles Street turn right into Liardet, right into Esplanade St E, right into Bridge, then right into Cruikshank. From Richardson St the same convoluted approach is required.

Regarding the impact on other adjacent streets, many drivers (coming from North going South) previously turned right at Pickles St to get to the west via Bridge Street which goes directly to Bay Street where there are traffic lights. Residents now observe a significant number of drivers turning right from Pickles Street into Spring Street East or driving across Pickles Street from Mountain Street with the same goal. Spring Street East is a very narrow road not designed for the load safely carried along Bridge St.

Because motorists can no longer drive across Pickles Street from Bridge St to Glover St, or turn right into Glover St to go East to South Melbourne and Albert Park there is now increased traffic from Pickles Street into Tribe St and Mountain Street. There also appears to be increased traffic into /along Richardson Street.

It is alarming that Council traffic management staff appear to have ignored resident’s concerns about this intersection and traffic speed prior to commencement of the trial and during the trial. It is not unreasonable to assume that Council had a predetermined outcome prior to the commencement of the trial and community consultation. 

Residents were unaware of any opportunity for residents to give feedback and contribute to the evaluation report in either an informal or formal manner.  

My mother is an immigrant – and was a commercial cleaner – 7 days a week.

I am an immigrant – and in my youth – I went to work with mum – as a commercial cleaner.

I’ve cleaned Police stations, Pubs and pokie venues in my time.

The work was dirty and heavy…

As an adult – I hate cleaning - but I have a commercial understanding of the process and the costs and everything else in between. My mum doesn’t speak, read, or write in English - so I managed her business while completing High School – and still manager her affairs.

In saying that – I am really disappointed with the poor response by CoPP Street Cleaners - to my Snap Send Solve on the 23rd OCTOBER. 

In some cases – the foot path was done but the pigeon poo splashing’s on the building millimetres away -  were ignored. Images of before and after attached for reference.

Really wouldn’t have taken much to do it properly. It’s a pressure hose…  in the ‘real world’. In my world as an immigrant – we would have lost out jobs over that, lost contracts. 

In council world? What happens? Is someone accountable? Responsible? 

Other than a small section  of footpath – the rest of the street was totally ignored along the South Melbourne Bakery footpath, fish and chips shop, the bus stop, at the corner of Clarendon and Park – My Local. Go down there – you can see years of grime, pigeon and dog excrement.

Why did the council cleaners or contractors clean HALF the poo  – and leave the rest? Shouldn’t the poo be cleaned regularly?

I escalated it via Snap Send Solve immediately AGAIN at the time, and responded to the email advising my issue had been ‘closed’ to let them know it wasn’t completed.

Nothings been done since. No regular cleaning. No removal of the rest of the poo. 

There is a Pigeon Poo Problem on Clarendon Street. We are sick of the dirty streets and pigeon poo. It’s unhealthy, unhygienic, and unsightly.

I have written to Councillors but they have busy schedules and some have families and even full-time jobs, but there is a problem with getting things done ‘properly’ around here… but going through the officers is like talking to robots.

There are numerous businesses on that strip that are pretty upset at this and the grime, and at council for not ‘looking after the streets’.

There are many people that don’t even bother complaining, as they don’t think it will make a difference.

I know we have a few more riff-raff members of the community here in South Melbourne rather than the 'poshy' Port Melbourne – but we deserve clean streets too… In fact, we need ours cleaned more often to deal with the meth addicts, public housing, and public transport routes.

Please help and sort out the street cleaning.

As many of you have experienced, the Port Phillip council changed waste contractors in July, with terrible results. Whole streets were being missed, individual houses and laneways missed, bins not collected in some cases for more than a week, and bins left on roads, driveways and lying on the ground. 

The council and Councillors received a huge response back from the community. As a result of this poor outcome for our community (thankfully it has dramatically improved since) an independent, external review is being undertaken. The following is a summary of the review and the outcomes you can expect:

• An independent external review is underway to review the circumstances surrounding the kerbside waste collection issues that occurred following the commencement of Council’s new contractor for kerbside waste services, Citywide, from Monday 3 July 2023.
• While 90 per cent of kerbside bin collections were operating normally during that period, the number of missed bins and repeated missed collections, and time taken to rectify the issues, were unacceptable. The frustration of our residents who were impacted by these waste collection issues is completely understandable.  
• Following completion of the review, Council anticipates that a draft report will be completed this side of Christmas. Ultimately a report will go to Council in February, when Council meetings resume after the summer break. The report findings should also be publicly available for our community to view.
• The review intends to determine what led to the large number of missed bins and why. The report will provide recommendations on any changes and other learnings that may be implemented to avoid similar issues occurring again in the future.

Please see the link below for more information. https://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/.../waste-review-underway

 Rising Sun Hotel

 Prince Bandroom

 Middle Park Hotel

 Prince Alfred

 Esplanade - St Kilda

 Inkerman Hotel

 George Lane

 Iddy Biddy

 Republica

 Cornerstone

 Jimmy ONeils

 Captain Baxter

 Palais Theatre

 Memo Music Hall

 Recital Centre Melbourne

 Alex Theatre - St Kilda

 Arts Centre - Melbourne

 Crown - Southbank

 Astor - St Kilda

 Palace Dendy - Brighton

 Classic - Elsternwick

 Hoyts - Docklands

 Palace - Brighton Bay

 Village - Jam Factory

 Gasworks

 Whats On in St Kilda

 Jewish Museum of Australia

 Whats On in Port Phillip

 Events @ South Melb Market

 Markets in the Area

 Special Events

 Middle Park Bowls Events