By Rod Mitchell
At the 20th of March CoPP meeting, Councillor Clark introduced a motion requesting that the CEO in preparing the 2024/2025 budget, seek spending reductions by 1.6% (savings of $3.6 million) with the aim of no increases to rates for that year. This proposed resolution was framed within the backdrop of an increasingly tough time for rate payers as cost-of-living pressures bite hard.
One Councillor in opposing the motion went on a rambling support of further ratepayer increases with a cherry-picked list of current spending programmes within Council that would suffer if funding was reduced.
Like a chorus, the usual suspects voted with a lack of curiosity for no review of current expenditure within the $250 million plus budget. A clear case of “nothing to see here, now let’s move along.”
What the Councillor missed in their whimsical verbal tour of council expenditure was the fact that:
- 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.
What was also glaringly missed in this discussion was the fact that:
- 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!
The overriding takeaway from this meeting was that within a certain block of Councillors, any cut in expenditure was a red line that would not be entertained.
April Council Meeting.
Having succeeded in a majority vote to increase rates for this year, new spending resolutions proposed from the same grouping of Councillors appears for discussion. A cynic would argue that it’s just the same old tax and spend mentality, cocooned as “caring” but really just a code word for more pork barrelling to their voting block interests. Without going into too much unpacking:
1.Increased Funding for the Eco Centre of $51,000 p.a. and an additional $68,000 p.a. for an 18-month trial programme: *Motion Passed.
Construction of the new Eco-Centre has been funded by the CoPP ($3.35 million) and the Victorian Government ($3 million). It receives $300,000 per year but it wants additional funding at the same time enjoying a rental discount in its operations courtesy of the ratepayers. They have links to political groups including Port Phillip Climate Emergency Action Network (Pecan), Progressive Port Phillip and the radical Extinction Rebellion. They also have informal links to some of our Councillors. – See Stop Press Article below for further updates.
In an environment of increasingly competing funding needs in the CoPP, the Eco Centre has had more than enough ratepayer support over the years and should take ownership of their funding shortfalls and fund raise or crowd fund to supplement existing funding on their own. Council should not be treated as their annual ATM!
2.Grants of $250,000 to rental relief organisations. *Motion Failed.
This grant was intended to assist existing organisations like the Tenancy Union and groups that provide legal support etc. There is no control on how these bodies spend the grant monies. Some of these bodies have informal links to some of our Councillors and political activists.
There is a myriad of rental relief organisations at the State and Federal level and it’s not a CoPP remit to fund these bodies. Another cost shifting exercise with elements of pork barrelling in an election year.
3. $1 million p.a. for 10 years to fund social housing “In our backyard strategy.”
This proposed grant was wrong on several levels that include:
- 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.
This motion should rightly be seen as political tokenism and the perfect backdrop for consolidating base support in an election year. As one Councillor at the meeting observed “we are all good at politically posturing”; these three pork barrel initiatives more than confirmed their observation.
4. One good motion passed despite opposition from the usual suspects.
The one good motion that went to Council was increasing and upgrading Close Circuit TV (CCTV). This is well supported in the community and by the Police who increasingly rely on CCTV in their policing role. Safeguarding the community and protecting infrastructure is the number one issue at all three tiers of government. Sadly, two of our politically aligned Councillors saw the issue differently, voting 'No' to the CCTV upgrades proposal. These are the same Councillors who oppose:
- “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.
Sadly, the light shining from the sensible centre of decision making is still out of sight for those two highly political operatives.
As one Facebook blogger recently stated:
“They tend to vote down anything that is sensible or helps the community stay safe - in their words they don’t see an issue with safety in St Kilda – I mean what right minded or community minded Councillor would vote down improvements in CCTV?
Stop Press: Activist Link to St Kilda EcoCentre Put on Notice.
Questions have been raised through the Herald Sun (Wednesday 15 May), that the EcoCentre is a “Greens clubhouse” used not only by PECAN but its affiliate Extinction Rebellion. Extinction Rebellion are radical climate activists linked to shutdowns of parts of Melbourne and more recently West Gate Bridge.
Cr Bond stated,
“There should be no place for disruptive groups such as Extinction Rebellion in a council owned and funded building and organisation as the Port Phillip EcoCentre.”
Cr Bond would have legitimised his argument even further if he had a few weeks back supported a proposed resolution by Cr Clark to review all council expenditure and find savings which would have included a review on monies spent at the EcoCentre. Port Phillip Councillors in the majority, show but passing interest in the search for efficiencies and expense reductions in their operating budget. The City of Melbourne in contrast has found $11.5 million in savings or 2% of their operating budget for 2024.
Mayor Cunsolo in response to the claims made concerning the EcoCentre stated that, “our council reserves the right to cancel the lease if activities of any users don’t comply with Victorian Law or relevant council policies.”
The questions to Mayor Cunsolo are:
What are the Council policies that prohibit disruptive organisations operating (overt or covert) out of Council infrastructure?
What does the Council lease to the Eco Centre state about the use by “affiliate members” of the Centre?
Whatever the answers from Major Cunsolo, the EcoCentre should all be on our radar to ensure improving and preserving our environment is done without divisive and disruptive means and certainly not using rate payer monies for political agendas.
