Having attended, and on a few occasions spoken at council meetings, I have been somewhat surprised and disappointed at the level of debate and quality of some of our elected councillors. Sadly, for anyone aspiring to be a councillor, these meetings reenforce my view that council politics combined with both the quality of representation, is a near no-go zone for those who value the sensible centre that focuses on the core remit of rates, roads, and rubbish.

Under council rules, the public are allowed only two minutes to air their concerns to Councillors. This is a sensible rule to ensure that the public keep any matter brief and to the point. It is the only way meetings of Council could effectively operate. Councillors on the other hand have no time limits on their speaking and this is where good quality argument can and does go off the rails.

At the meeting that discussed the future of the James Cook statue several key takeaways were visibly on display.

While the gallery participants spoke with clarity within their assigned two minutes, the same could not be said of some of the Councillors that towards the end of the debate were treating the discussion like some US Senate filibuster. Rambling and at times lacking coherence; including one Councillor who brought out a “prop” in the form of his primary school scrapbook to bring home a point that was lost on the gallery. 

Another Councillor talked about his education and majoring in European history and that too was lost on the gallery. He then, at a point of inflection, snapped at another Councillor about him not being liked because he held several passports! No one knew what that was about either!

Credit should go to the Mayor who held the meeting together well, however the clear takeaway was that Councillors should have imposed on them two-to-three-minute speaking limits on any topic. Props should not be used (they are banned in the federal parliament) and Councillors should be able to be pulled up by the Mayor on relevance when the subject matter strays.

Such a process if implemented would go a long way in lifting the standard of argument, produce greater clarity and keep the function of council meetings operating efficiently.

One of the concerns expressed by many rate payers is the politicisation of the Council meetings - the essential remit of roads, rubbish and rates gets lost in the politicised agendas of some Councillors and their political backers - including Spring Street. As an overlay to this, many of the Councillors know that preselection to run in State or Federal elections rely on endorsement by a political party including a mandatory spell as a Councillor to “grind their teeth” so to speak. Hence, we see several Councillors who are or have viewed council as a stepping stone to “greater” opportunities/things. 

A few Councillors have tried achieving preselection and standing at State elections on several occasions, but to no avail. Some do not even have the courtesy to resign their council position when they do stand at state elections, keeping their council “seat” warm as a fallback position. 

The pertinent point here is that ratepayers suffer from such dual ambitions and tied political affiliations by some of our Councillors. Gone are the days where we see a chamber of grass roots Councillors who just want to serve local communities with no other ambitions, or vision beyond their basic remit to add value and contribute solely to their community.

The other issue and related in part to the previous point, is what we could loosely describe as emerging “career Councillors.”   These are the long-term Councillors that keep re-nominating. A sensible change to council laws by the State Government would be to limit Councillors to two terms in office. Currently we have the possibility of some existing Councillors sitting for 12 -16 years if they re-nominate and are successful in the upcoming October council elections. Noise on the street is that several former Councillor “old hands” are also looking to nominate and re-enter the fray. Let’s hope they have a previous tangible track record that stands them well if they do nominate. Ratepayers are tired of just talk.

The politicisation at Councillor level also has other implications. Sound objections to Council proposals or the rejection by ratepayers and local communities of Councillor driven agendas are often difficult to defeat at Council; and if defeated, rely on a slim margin of hands. For example, minority progressive voices from:

are all difficult to defeat, irrespective that a clear majority of residents seek common sense approaches. The fact that even an Aboriginal elder of the St Kilda area spoke in favour of maintaining the Cook statue in its current location, did not deter progressive agendas from trying to upend the wishes of the majority including Aboriginal elders.

This “closed ears” approach remains a challenge for our community; in particular where there are ongoing attempts for far-left ideology to trump the common sense of the majority of ratepayers and residents.

A further question we should all be asking is: "have the long-term Councillors currently in place done a sufficient enough job and do they have a strong track record of achievement in council to justify their re-election in October? My cursory review suggests that the scales sway to the "no" on this question. Has our basic infrastructure, safety, rubbish collection and amenity improved? Our tired high streets in Port Phillip stand as a testament to that question! Regarding the Acland Street mall fiasco, we even have two Councillors still sitting in the Chamber who supported that disastrous decision back in 2016!

In summary we need less talking by Councillors including implementing time limit rules at council meetings, greater focus on the core remit, and a limit of two terms as a Councillor in office. We need to move away from ideology to the commonsense decision making that reflects majority opinion and what ratepayers expect from the CoPP. If your councillor is going for a third or more term at the elections this September, pat them on the back, thank them for their service and politely ask them to move on. It’s time for some fresh air in the Chamber, unshackled by ideologues and seat warmers.

For most of us, Councils are about delivering on the three basic tenants of Rates, Roads, and Rubbish (the three Rs). In that remit comes maintenance of our infrastructure, streets, parks, removal of graffiti and ensuring any build meets the regulatory code. Similarly in a society with three tiers of government, there should be an understanding of the separation of responsibilities. 

Any Council that goes outside the basic remit, will ipso facto mean less focus on core responsibilities with more resources allocated to non-core services. When Councillors do diverge from the basic remit, you can be sure that rate payer anger will rise as service delivery suffers.  Hence the current disappointment at Council delivery readily seen in surveys.