Maribyrnong
Now your correspondent is pretty good, but she ain’t magic, and cannot be in two places at once. So this is why – while attending last month’s Brimbank council meeting on Hampshire Road – your correspondent didn’t see the 80-plus protestors in the rain out the front of Maribyrnong’s historic council chambers on Hyde Street.
Your correspondent didn’t hear them chanting “Hey Hey, Ho Ho, security has to go” and “From the Mall to the Hall, Footscray Belongs to All”.
Irregular metre aside, the message was fairly clear: there are some in the Footscray community that are pretty p*ssed off about Council engaging private security guards to walk Footscray’s CBD with local laws officers. The six-month trial commenced in September last year.
Inside, the mid-term trial evaluation was up for council discussion. Which was why council would not read out about half of the 30-odd public questions related to the security guard program (answers may have “pre-empted” a decision that was up for debate).
Those that were answered – mostly about community consultation processes (or lack thereof) around the program – were interspersed by mocking laughter and interjections of “shame, shame” from the gallery.
But council did unanimously receive a tabled 201-signature petition calling on council to cease the program, stop resourcing the surveillance and “over policing” of public spaces, and to “redeploy” funds to community-led and designed services.
The mid-term trial evaluation report recommended a “shift” from a security-led approach to a “place-based” council coordination, activation and “amenity presence”.
In effect, what this means is that council won’t be extending the engagement of private security guards, but will employ in-house personnel for both safety enforcement and coordination of community services, at an annual cost of $450,000.
In moving the motion, Cr Pradeep Tiwari said councillors were not voted in to “outsource responsibility”, and the recommendation “positions council as a convenor, connector and advocate”.
“The future is not reactive patrols,” he said. “The future is visible council leadership on the ground. For those worried about safety this maintains presence and improves structure. For those concerned about exclusion or unintended impacts, this moves us towards a more trauma-informed and coordinated approach and for traders who want stability and confidence, this creates a daily identifiable council team embedded in the precinct.”
But the recommendation includes a $60,000 four-month “bridging extension” to “enable full operational readiness” of the “Council-led civic presence model” before July.
There was a round of applause from the public gallery when Cr Bernadette Thomas told council she “could not” support security patrols in the CBD for a further four months.
“I didn’t six months ago when the first program was rushed before council and I don’t support this new four-month security program.”
Cr Tiwari could barely make it through his rebuttal because of interruptions from the public gallery.
“Ending the program abruptly does not create coordination, it creates a gap,” he said. “We are transitioning to a new model and I support that transition, but transitioning requires planning, staffing, governance, clarity and operational readiness.”
Amid heckles and a mass exodus from the public gallery, the recommendation – to move to a “place-based” community outreach model while private security guards remained over a four-month transition period – was voted in four votes to two, with one abstention.
The report found the six-month trial had “gradual improvements” in the perceptions of safety, but there were “continued challenges” and “polarised experiences”.
Oh, and if you’re wondering how your correspondent knows all this when she wasn’t there? Well your correspondent – on your behalf – spoke to a lot of people who were there, including Footscray Community Response spokesperson, Jorge Jorquera.
“It’s somewhat of a victory because they’ve backed off on security guards,” he said. “But it’s a vague blank cheque, no detail. The problem is, we don’t know what’s coming next.”
Brimbank
Meanwhile, over in Brimbank …
It’s not often that every single councillor feels compelled to speak on an issue. But garbo collection was one of them at last month’s Brimbank meeting.
The proposal to change to a four-bin waste collection model was – in Cr Daniel Kruk’s words – a “hot topic” for the Brimbank community.
Under the Victorian Government’s Kerbside Waste Reforms, all Victorian councils are required to implement a four-bin waste and recycling system before July next year. But just how the red, green, yellow and purple bins are collected is still up for debate in each council.
The recommendation put to Brimbank last month proposed to introduce a monthly collection of a new purple-lidded glass bin (not literally a glass bin, but one that contains rubbish made from glass – oh you know what your correspondent means) and the “FOGO” (food and garden waste) will be a compulsory weekly collection.
Meanwhile, the yellow recycling bin will remain a fortnightly collection.
Which is all well and good until you realise that the next step in our rubbish revolution is the reduction of our general red-lidded waste collection to every fortnight.
Now, at the moment we’re paying about $369 per household, per annum, for our garbo service. Under the proposed system we’ll be paying $434. But what it means is that your bin would be sitting by the kerb, filling with rubbish, for two weeks.
In putting forward an amended motion – to maintain a weekly general waste collection at $50 extra ($484) – Cr Lucy Nguyen said the “intents” behind these reforms were “really important”.
“Moving to a fortnightly general waste collection may show environmental benefits in modelling but we must also consider the lived reality for households,” she said. “Many families, particularly larger households, and young families managing nappies, supporting people with disabilities and older residents still generate general waste that cannot easily be stored for two weeks.”
After each of the 11 councillors told the chamber the same kind of thing, the amended motion was passed unanimously.
Hobsons Bay
Well it all started with an apology. It was the third time Cr Lisa Bentley had apologised to the chamber, this time over comments she had made in the December council meeting.
The last time was over her passionate reaction to the voting down of her crime amendment in July, and the time before was during debate over Council’s ‘Expression of Solidarity with the Hobsons Bay Community Regarding the Situation in the Middle East’ in August.
Last December’s meeting was debating who council does business with when spending ratepayer money, after officers submitted a report on “incorporating best-practice human rights protections and risk mitigation into procurement, investment and related policies”.
“So as to reduce the use of Council resources to aid, abet, or materially contribute to human rights violations, including but not limited to discrimination, modern slavery, and international crimes including crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide,” the report said.
The December meeting started with a one-minute silence for the victims of the Bondi attack earlier that month.
Cr Daria Kalender asked council to defer a response to the report until the February meeting, given post-Bondi sentiment.
“What we do now and in the weeks and months ahead matters,” Cr Kalender said. “I believe that deliberating on this item is rather insensitive, whether that be now or in February, and as a result of that I will not be participating in this item at all and I will be abstaining for the vote.”
Cr Bentley said she found voting on the report would be “very insensitive” and “inappropriate” considering what had “recently occurred”.
Cr Bentley described the UN Human Rights Council as “an absolute farce” and “dominated” by “non-democracies”, at which point Cr Bishop called a point-of-order, saying debate had moved into the “substantive motion” (accepting the report) “which is not the item that we’re currently considering” (deferring a decision on the report).
“It’s just not relevant to whether we defer or not,” Cr Bishop said.
The motion to defer the report to the February meeting was carried five votes to two abstentions.
So fast-forward to February’s meeting … Cr Bentey apologised for her comments during the December meeting.
“It was an intensely emotional period for me and I did not intend to cause offence to our community,” she said. “If I inadvertently caused any distress, hurt or misunderstanding to our law-abiding citizens living, working or playing in Hobsons Bay I want to assure you it was not intentional.”
The deferred report (agenda item 7.2.9.) found Council used no business enterprises for procurement and financial investment, which had been blacklisted by the Human Rights Council.
The report recommended council “reaffirm” its commitment to considering human rights implications in relation to choosing suppliers and service providers and to “note” best-practice human rights protections and risk mitigation were incorporated into the draft Hobsons Bay Procurement Policy.
Cr Rayane Hawli said she “strongly welcomed” the report’s finding.
“This is going to provide comfort to many in our community and has begun the process of normalising international human rights compliance at a local government level.”
The motion was carried with four votes to three abstentions.
Cr Hawli said value for money, “rightfully” remained the “central focus” of council’s procurement policy. “There is no necessary contradiction between the goals of value for money, good governance and transparency, and spending in a way that benefits our community,” she said.
The new procurement policy was adopted unanimously.
Wyndham
By Jack Sutton
An eventful meeting at Wyndham this month and it drew quite the crowd with 17 people in attendance. Mayor Josh Gilligan was stood down for one month after an independent investigation found he breached standards for behaviour and conduct when he described a former mayor as a “raging lunatic”. A report tabled in the meeting found he was demeaning and abusive in his Facebook comments about Kim McAliney. With the suspension not due to start till the following day Cr Gilligan was present for the duration of the meeting.
Many issues were covered but the evergreen topic of dog poo was a highlight. Councillors spoke about dog waste for 26 minutes prompting Cr Jennie Barrera to say “We are putting in a lot of time and effort talking about dog poo”.
During the gruelling debate it was revealed that officers had spent five days counting “dog droppings” in a Point Cook dog park. Cr Gilligan questioned whether this was an
“appropriate use” of rate payers funds. Cr Jasmine Hill said that the conversation was to educate pet owners more on the appropriate disposal of the pet waste.
The council is hoping to adjust existing dog-waste bin placement and other infrastructure to match complaint trends and high-usage locations. The decision was carried 6-5.
Another important talking point was the possible introduction of glass bins for each home in Wyndham City costing around $7.7m. There is also the “operational cost” each year, which would range from $1.9m-$2.5m, and could increase in the years following.
Cr Peter Maynard said, “this WILL impact the cost of living for all.” Cr Preet Singh questioned the need for the bins saying his household “almost never” throws away or uses any glass. While Cr Mia Shaw said the Container Deposit Scheme is achieving the same results that the glass bins would.
The item requested an extension of time for Council to consider the roll out of glass bins and with almost no pushback was carried.
