No comment VEXNEWS
Friday, November 21, 2008
Night Stalker Catherine Ng proposes city's museums, galleries and churches open 24 x7
Melbourne City may soon have a 24 hour Art Gallery and City Museum if Catherine Ng has her way.
In a desperate move to attract attention
Catherine Ng who is chairwoman of the City Council's planning committee has proposed that Melbourne Museum Art Galleys and Churches be open 24 hours a day so that Melbourne night life can benefit from the cultural and religious experiences. (Herald Sun) Cr. Ng failed to provide a costing for the proposal which came under criticism by other Candidates. Cr Peter McMullin, who is also chairman of the Melbourne Museum, said there Catherine Ng's is in cloud cuckoo land, "there is no demand for a at night opening of the Museum" which is situated in the Carlton Gardens.
Meanwhile scare tactics have infiltrated Gary Singer's campaign who came out and criticised proposed development of the Queen Victoria Market car park site. The QV site has long been the subject of proposed development and McMullins plan of action is not new but loNg over due. The Queen Victoria market was built on an early colonial settlement grave yard and if any development takes place any remains would be exhumed and reburied as was the case when the Market was first built.
Gary Singer like Catherine Ng are showing signs of desperation in promoting horror stories of "digging up dead" and their desire for more night life activity.
Could it be that Catherine Ng and Gary Singer are night crawlers and if so could be of great interest to Buffy?
In a desperate move to attract attention
Catherine Ng who is chairwoman of the City Council's planning committee has proposed that Melbourne Museum Art Galleys and Churches be open 24 hours a day so that Melbourne night life can benefit from the cultural and religious experiences. (Herald Sun) Cr. Ng failed to provide a costing for the proposal which came under criticism by other Candidates. Cr Peter McMullin, who is also chairman of the Melbourne Museum, said there Catherine Ng's is in cloud cuckoo land, "there is no demand for a at night opening of the Museum" which is situated in the Carlton Gardens.
Meanwhile scare tactics have infiltrated Gary Singer's campaign who came out and criticised proposed development of the Queen Victoria Market car park site. The QV site has long been the subject of proposed development and McMullins plan of action is not new but loNg over due. The Queen Victoria market was built on an early colonial settlement grave yard and if any development takes place any remains would be exhumed and reburied as was the case when the Market was first built.
Gary Singer like Catherine Ng are showing signs of desperation in promoting horror stories of "digging up dead" and their desire for more night life activity.
Could it be that Catherine Ng and Gary Singer are night crawlers and if so could be of great interest to Buffy?
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Cyberwar or Hanke panky Catherine Ng 's "Children Overboard" scam
War of words and a free plug for Catherine Ng.
The Age newspaper published yesterday a free campaign plug for Catherine Ng who has falsely claimed that her opponents had initiated a google cyber attack against her site.
Catherine Ng's claims are another example of the false and misleading statements of wrong doing that is being pumped out by her campaign director Ian Hanke - The Liberal Party "Spin doctor" who promoted the "Children Overboard" lie used to win votes for John Howard in 2004.
The Age, keen to promote Catherine Ng and cash in on the false and misleading statements, demonstrated an alarming lack of professionalism and bias in its reporting. If you look closely at the Google screen shot shown in the Age article you will notice on the right had side (slightly obscured) an ad placed by Gary Singer. The Age had deliberately sought to crop that out from the photo.
Catherine Ng's spin masters tired to make our and imply that there was some of hanke panky going on in cyberspace. The only Hanke panky is coming from Catherine Ng herself. So desperate is Catherine Ng to seek headlines and attract media attention to her campaign that she has stooped to making false claims. There is nothing wrong or underhanded in a person buying advertising space on the Internet. in fact is is very much apart of the free market economy and a open democratic society.
Gary Singer, Catherine Ng's running mate, admitted that he also had brought Google advertising space to promote for his campaign.
It should also be noted that both Ng and Singer also have placed ads using Google keywords.
Honesty overboard
Contrary to the statements published in the Age article hotlinks to Catherine Ng and Gary Singer's web sites appear more regularly then they do for Peter McMullin who has been the target of envy, dirty ticks and lies by the Singer and Ng camps.
A simple Google search on the keyword "Lord Mayor" shows that all three candidates appear in the Google hot links page, proving that the statements made by both Ng and Singer that their ads only appear when you do a Google on their names are false.
False statements or deliberate lie published in The Age dirty tricks campaign?:
The Age newspaper published yesterday a free campaign plug for Catherine Ng who has falsely claimed that her opponents had initiated a google cyber attack against her site.
Catherine Ng's claims are another example of the false and misleading statements of wrong doing that is being pumped out by her campaign director Ian Hanke - The Liberal Party "Spin doctor" who promoted the "Children Overboard" lie used to win votes for John Howard in 2004.
The Age, keen to promote Catherine Ng and cash in on the false and misleading statements, demonstrated an alarming lack of professionalism and bias in its reporting. If you look closely at the Google screen shot shown in the Age article you will notice on the right had side (slightly obscured) an ad placed by Gary Singer. The Age had deliberately sought to crop that out from the photo.
Catherine Ng's spin masters tired to make our and imply that there was some of hanke panky going on in cyberspace. The only Hanke panky is coming from Catherine Ng herself. So desperate is Catherine Ng to seek headlines and attract media attention to her campaign that she has stooped to making false claims. There is nothing wrong or underhanded in a person buying advertising space on the Internet. in fact is is very much apart of the free market economy and a open democratic society.
Gary Singer, Catherine Ng's running mate, admitted that he also had brought Google advertising space to promote for his campaign.
It should also be noted that both Ng and Singer also have placed ads using Google keywords.
Honesty overboardContrary to the statements published in the Age article hotlinks to Catherine Ng and Gary Singer's web sites appear more regularly then they do for Peter McMullin who has been the target of envy, dirty ticks and lies by the Singer and Ng camps.
A simple Google search on the keyword "Lord Mayor" shows that all three candidates appear in the Google hot links page, proving that the statements made by both Ng and Singer that their ads only appear when you do a Google on their names are false.
False statements or deliberate lie published in The Age dirty tricks campaign?:
Cr Singer has an ad on Google. But like Cr Ng's, his ad only appears when his name is typed.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Doyle Puppertry Candidate failed to turn up (again) to face the press
Melbourne City Council, front runner and celebrity candidate, Robert Doyle failed to front up to the Press Council's grill the candidates' breakfast.
Doyle's absence and lack of commitment to the City election has been a notable talking point throughout the campaign. By not turning up to meetings and public events Robert Doyle has avoided public scrutiny and questioning over his leadership and policies for Melbourne. The level of contempt shown by Robert Doyle seriously undermines confidence in the the direct election of Lord mayor.
Robert Doyle has been a silent puppet candidate with his Deputy candidate, Susan Riley, pulling the strings. Susan Riley was John So's former Deputy Lord Mayor before being dumped by John So in favour of Gary Singer.
He has thumbed his nose at the people of Melbourne and expects to be elected Lord Mayor on the strength of his name alone. Robert Doyle's lack of participation and minimial activity in the campaign does nothing to support his billboard campaign slogan "Activate Melbourne".
Doyle's absence and lack of commitment to the City election has been a notable talking point throughout the campaign. By not turning up to meetings and public events Robert Doyle has avoided public scrutiny and questioning over his leadership and policies for Melbourne. The level of contempt shown by Robert Doyle seriously undermines confidence in the the direct election of Lord mayor.
Robert Doyle has been a silent puppet candidate with his Deputy candidate, Susan Riley, pulling the strings. Susan Riley was John So's former Deputy Lord Mayor before being dumped by John So in favour of Gary Singer.
He has thumbed his nose at the people of Melbourne and expects to be elected Lord Mayor on the strength of his name alone. Robert Doyle's lack of participation and minimial activity in the campaign does nothing to support his billboard campaign slogan "Activate Melbourne".
Questions of Law pollster calls halt to illegal election
Never to let a chance go by Pollster and wana-be Lord Mayor candidate Gary Morgan today called into question the legality of the City Council election. Claiming that over 20,000 corporate representatives had been added to the roll without their consent. How much of this claim, like the recent hype of Catherine Ng who falsely declared a Cyber war, was designed to attract some free media is unknown.
Herald Sub - Hamish Heard
November 19, 2008 04:25pm
OUTSPOKEN mayoral candidate Gary Morgan called today for the election to be cancelled, claiming 15,000 voters were illegally enrolled.
At a meet-the-candidates breakfast at The Hotel Windsor this morning, Mr Morgan said Melbourne Council had added about 20,000 corporate representatives to the electoral roll in the lead-up to the election based on information gleaned from ASIC.
However, only about 5000 had been properly authorised with signed consent forms, Mr Morgan told the Melbourne Leader.
“Under the Local Government Act electoral regulations it says that enrolment applications must include a written, signed declaration that verifies they are the owner, occupier or authorised company representative and that they consent to the application,” Mr Morgan explained after the Press Club breakfast.
“I have very good legal advice that this is illegal and we will write to (Victorian Electoral Commission returning officer) Bill Lang and ask to have consent forms available to our scrutineers and we’ll check every signature.
“If they dont all have consent forms the only fair thing would be to have another election.”
Ten of the 11 candidates for Lord Mayor were questioned by journalists and other interested parties at the breakfast, with less than a week before the close of voting.
Herald Sub - Hamish Heard
November 19, 2008 04:25pm
OUTSPOKEN mayoral candidate Gary Morgan called today for the election to be cancelled, claiming 15,000 voters were illegally enrolled.
At a meet-the-candidates breakfast at The Hotel Windsor this morning, Mr Morgan said Melbourne Council had added about 20,000 corporate representatives to the electoral roll in the lead-up to the election based on information gleaned from ASIC.
However, only about 5000 had been properly authorised with signed consent forms, Mr Morgan told the Melbourne Leader.
“Under the Local Government Act electoral regulations it says that enrolment applications must include a written, signed declaration that verifies they are the owner, occupier or authorised company representative and that they consent to the application,” Mr Morgan explained after the Press Club breakfast.
“I have very good legal advice that this is illegal and we will write to (Victorian Electoral Commission returning officer) Bill Lang and ask to have consent forms available to our scrutineers and we’ll check every signature.
“If they dont all have consent forms the only fair thing would be to have another election.”
Ten of the 11 candidates for Lord Mayor were questioned by journalists and other interested parties at the breakfast, with less than a week before the close of voting.
Boys with Toys VEC denies Melbourne the opportunity to effectively scrutinise the election of Lord Mayor
The Victorian Electoral Commission to is set to deny proper and effective scrutiny of the Municipal ballot - setting the scene for a repeat of the mistakes made in conduct of the 2006 State Election.
The Victorian Electoral Commission intends on using a computerised counting system to count single-member electorates and in the process will limit opportunity for the proper and detailed scrutiny of the ballot which in turn brings the electoral system into disrepute.
There is no justification for a the use of a computerised count for single-member electorates or the City of Melbourne 'Lord Mayor' Leadership Team.
In multi-member electorates a computerised count can assist in the filling of casual vacancies but there is no advantage in conducting a computerised count for single-member elections. Any savings in time comes at the expense of the scrutiny of the ballot. We could very much see a repeat of the mistakes made by the Victorian Electoral Commission during the 2006 State Election. In many cases it is quicker to count the ballot manually tehn by a data-entry tabulation.
Unlike the State Election the Victorian Electoral Commission will not pre-sort ballot papers into primary votes before subjecting the ballots to a computerised data-entry count.
The process adopted by the Victorian Electoral Commission is akin to the three shells and a pea used by con artists. A ball is placed and hidden under a shell and then the shells are rotated and mixed-up and the punter has to guess which shell the pea is under.
Ballot papers will be randomly collated and batched before preferences are transcribed and data-entered into a computer. Whilst scrutineers will have the limited opportunity to observe the data-entry process they will not be able to effectively observe all ballot papers.
The quality of the count would be better if single-member electorates where counted manually as it provides more opportunity for the proper scrutiny of the ballot. By pre-sorting the ballot papers into primary votes scrutineers can follow the count and focus their attention on the votes that count. The randomisation of the data-entry process prevents the proper scrutiny of the ballot.
The Victorian Electoral Commission does not use a system of double entry validation, instead they use what is referred to as random sampling quality checking. This system has a number of short comings which is unacceptable where the results of the election are likely to be close.
Radom sampleing is fine in a manufatoring process, where strict control is not required but it would be unaceptable for a bank to use a random sampling process in the counting of money. It is also unacceptable in the counting of votes.
The time and resources required to undertake a computerised count for single-member electorates is the same, if not more, then a manual counting process. More important is that the quality of the count and the scrutiny of the ballot is significantly reduced as a result of a computerised count.
The use of a computerised counting system for single-member elections is a case of Boys with Toys.
The Victorian Electoral Commission has spent millions of dollars duplicating resources and developing a computerised counting system. having spent allthis money dupolicating systems atht are already used by the Australian Electoral Commison the VEC consider it is necessary to use the computersied counting software even though the results and savings in the process are minimal if not worst.
A computerised counting system should not be used for single member electorates.
Where a computerised count is undertaken, ballot papers should be pre-sorted into primary votes before being transcribed and data-entered into a computerised counting system.
The Victorian Electoral Commission intends on using a computerised counting system to count single-member electorates and in the process will limit opportunity for the proper and detailed scrutiny of the ballot which in turn brings the electoral system into disrepute.
There is no justification for a the use of a computerised count for single-member electorates or the City of Melbourne 'Lord Mayor' Leadership Team.
In multi-member electorates a computerised count can assist in the filling of casual vacancies but there is no advantage in conducting a computerised count for single-member elections. Any savings in time comes at the expense of the scrutiny of the ballot. We could very much see a repeat of the mistakes made by the Victorian Electoral Commission during the 2006 State Election. In many cases it is quicker to count the ballot manually tehn by a data-entry tabulation.
Unlike the State Election the Victorian Electoral Commission will not pre-sort ballot papers into primary votes before subjecting the ballots to a computerised data-entry count.
The process adopted by the Victorian Electoral Commission is akin to the three shells and a pea used by con artists. A ball is placed and hidden under a shell and then the shells are rotated and mixed-up and the punter has to guess which shell the pea is under.
Ballot papers will be randomly collated and batched before preferences are transcribed and data-entered into a computer. Whilst scrutineers will have the limited opportunity to observe the data-entry process they will not be able to effectively observe all ballot papers.
The quality of the count would be better if single-member electorates where counted manually as it provides more opportunity for the proper scrutiny of the ballot. By pre-sorting the ballot papers into primary votes scrutineers can follow the count and focus their attention on the votes that count. The randomisation of the data-entry process prevents the proper scrutiny of the ballot.
The Victorian Electoral Commission does not use a system of double entry validation, instead they use what is referred to as random sampling quality checking. This system has a number of short comings which is unacceptable where the results of the election are likely to be close.
Radom sampleing is fine in a manufatoring process, where strict control is not required but it would be unaceptable for a bank to use a random sampling process in the counting of money. It is also unacceptable in the counting of votes.
The time and resources required to undertake a computerised count for single-member electorates is the same, if not more, then a manual counting process. More important is that the quality of the count and the scrutiny of the ballot is significantly reduced as a result of a computerised count.
The use of a computerised counting system for single-member elections is a case of Boys with Toys.
The Victorian Electoral Commission has spent millions of dollars duplicating resources and developing a computerised counting system. having spent allthis money dupolicating systems atht are already used by the Australian Electoral Commison the VEC consider it is necessary to use the computersied counting software even though the results and savings in the process are minimal if not worst.
A computerised counting system should not be used for single member electorates.
Where a computerised count is undertaken, ballot papers should be pre-sorted into primary votes before being transcribed and data-entered into a computerised counting system.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Going Solar A shadow of doubt and practicality hangs over the Greens
The Greens candidature for the City of Melbourne centers around a catch phrase of "A solar panel on every roof" delivering renewable energy for Melbourne.
Whilst the push for clean renewable energy is a worthy cause issues of practicality make it impossible to install a solar panel on every roof. Most of inner Melbourne with the exception of the tallest buildings are in shadow. Solar panels just would not work in a high density built environment. What happens if you or your neighbors invest in the installation of a solar system and a building near-by is later built that casts a shadow across your roof, do you have the right to claim or seek compensation for the loss of sunlight. Melbourne's planning scheme provides for four hours of sunlight at the equinox and in many circumstances in the inner city this is not achievable. The Solar dream is just that. A dream limited by the practical realities of physics more so then political policy. The City Council's luxury six star administration building itself has failed to deliver in the promises with many features of the building's design not living up to expectations or functionality. An independent building performance audit should be undertaken and less self adulation and promotional activity. But that would place another dent in the City Council's reputation of competence and an honest performance appraisal is beyond comprehension.
The Greens are not in a winning position to secure the Lord mayoralty but they will secure a seat at the Council table. Hopefully the Green's will make a positive contribution to Melbourne's future development but ideology should not supersede or dictate realities on the ground or as the case may be "up on the roof".
Whilst the push for clean renewable energy is a worthy cause issues of practicality make it impossible to install a solar panel on every roof. Most of inner Melbourne with the exception of the tallest buildings are in shadow. Solar panels just would not work in a high density built environment. What happens if you or your neighbors invest in the installation of a solar system and a building near-by is later built that casts a shadow across your roof, do you have the right to claim or seek compensation for the loss of sunlight. Melbourne's planning scheme provides for four hours of sunlight at the equinox and in many circumstances in the inner city this is not achievable. The Solar dream is just that. A dream limited by the practical realities of physics more so then political policy. The City Council's luxury six star administration building itself has failed to deliver in the promises with many features of the building's design not living up to expectations or functionality. An independent building performance audit should be undertaken and less self adulation and promotional activity. But that would place another dent in the City Council's reputation of competence and an honest performance appraisal is beyond comprehension.
The Greens are not in a winning position to secure the Lord mayoralty but they will secure a seat at the Council table. Hopefully the Green's will make a positive contribution to Melbourne's future development but ideology should not supersede or dictate realities on the ground or as the case may be "up on the roof".
Pumping the parish Melbourne 's want-a-be clowns star lineup
Melbourne City Council hopefuls met last night for auditions for who will be elected and who will eliminated. Voters had a chance to attend one of two public meetings held within the City (Kensington and Carlton)
Less then 100 people attended the Carlton "All Nations Church" most of tyhose in attendance were directly connected with various campaigns. It was difficult to know who, if any, where truely undecided in who they will vote for.
Most punters will decide who they will support based on political alliances and or the statements published in the information instruction booklet that has been set out with ballot papers. Reports in the Herald-Sun have indicated that there is a delay in the dispatch and delivery of ballot papers with many voters reporting that they had yet to receive their ballot papers for the City Council election. Somay voters have not been engaged in the campaign.
Ballot papers must be received by the Victorian Electoral Commission before 4:PM on Friday November 28.
The meeting in Carlton, whilst not that well attended, was never the less informative. If anything it provided an opportunity to meet face to face the candidates for office. The focus of the meeting was generally on the position of Lord mayor with little to no attention given to the Council representatives who are seen as secondary support acts not not the main game.
One of the greatest problems with the current City of Melbourne electoral model is that candidates that nominate for the "leadership team" of Lord mayor and Deputy Lord mayor are in a win or lose election. If they win they are handed the keys to the Limousine and have the right to wear the gold chains and robes of office if they lose they have no opportunity to directly contribute to the cities governance.
The choice of who is elected Lord Mayor is not based on ability, questions of good governance or even policies of the various candidates. Most punters will decide who to support based on public perception and popularity not policies. Many of the Lord mayoral candidates no not have well thought out or detailed policies of governance. Will Fowles "A fresh approach" is still to publish his policies on his web site.
Catherine's Policy of Opposition
Incumbent hopeful Catherine Ng had difficulty after seven years at the helm, in justifying her position. She put forward a range of pet projects and which included a planned Town Hall campaign of opposition to the Labor State Government in 2010. Who whe was proposing to support was not clear. If you listened and believe what Catherine Ng had to say all the faults and problems facing the City where problems of State administration and that her failure to deliver on governance issues and representation did not come into consideration.
Catherine Ng, once again, was in denial about her refusal to subject the City Council to open public review of its representational model. Catherine, along with other candidates, paid lip service and supported a public review of the system sometime in the next term of office, but she failed to explain why on three previous occasions she rejected outright proposals for a public review to take place prior to current election.
Clearly there is an overwhelming need to review Melbourne representational model. Having to endure another four years of poor representation before a review is implements does not instill confidence in the existing incumbent councillors.
Professionalism versus adversarial politics.
Of the nights performances two candidates' political forces stood out as being the only candidates worthy of support.
The star performers would have to have been Nick Columb and Peter McMullin's future team. The rest just fell by the wayside.
Both Nick Columb and Peter McMullin team presented two different and diametrically opposed approaches to governance.
Compliance and perpetuation of much the same with added professionalism.
Peter McMullin has put together an experienced and diversified team capable of working closely with State Government to deliver certain outcomes for the City's future, although they did not come across at the meeting as a dynamic team they are never the less a team worthy of consideration an their campaign is extensive and costly. If you believe that Local government can best meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and business by working closely with the State Government then McMullin is your best choice.
Adversarial polices for Melbourne
If you believe that the role of Local government is to act independent and in an adversarial role then Nick Columb is a candidate that deserves consideration. Nick has provided a fresh, articlulate and passionate campaign even if he is short on campaign funds. He has pulled no punches and calls a spade a spade following the long held tradition of Australian parish politics of old. He was not proposing a people's uprising nor was he proposing compliant subordination to Spring Street or pandering to the wishes of the governing tenants of town hall. If elected Nick Columb would provide an interesting four years to come, his style of leadership would be colorful and as vibrant as Melbourne's Spring Carnival. His forthright criticism of the waste and exuberance in town hall and his manner of doing business gave a clear indication that he was more then capable of advocating a change in direction for the City of Melbourne.
Doyle a familiar dud
The award for dud candidate for the night would go to Robert Doyle's "Activivate" team. Robert Doyle continues to demonstrate his lack of commitment to Melbourne. Doyle did not turn up to either the Carlton or Kensington meetings, instead he left the campaign to be run by his Deputy Lord mayoral candidate Susan Riley. Susan Riley, who was John So's first Deputy Lord mayor back in 2001-2004 (before John So dumped her for Gary Singer) was one of the worst Deputy Lord mayors in Melbourne's history. Her groups policies of reopening Swanston street and building the Edditington tunnel are at complete odds with the direction Melbourne has been heading.
Doyle's "billboard campaign" relys solely on the recognition factor, Doyle is the most well known of all candidates. The fact that he is considered favourite to win highlights one of the greatest problems of the direct election system. It is about recognition not polcies or ability. A tell tale saign of dislike for fpoyule's nomination is the fact that all candidates in this election have placed Doyle last or low on their HTV cards.
Nick Columb summed up more or less the prevailing opinon "Robert Doyle is the sort of person you do not want as Lord mayor". His lack of commitment to this election demonstrates why he failed as opposition leader in 2002 and why, as Nick Columb puts it, "failed politicians should not be allowed to be elected to Town Hall".
Less then 100 people attended the Carlton "All Nations Church" most of tyhose in attendance were directly connected with various campaigns. It was difficult to know who, if any, where truely undecided in who they will vote for.
Most punters will decide who they will support based on political alliances and or the statements published in the information instruction booklet that has been set out with ballot papers. Reports in the Herald-Sun have indicated that there is a delay in the dispatch and delivery of ballot papers with many voters reporting that they had yet to receive their ballot papers for the City Council election. Somay voters have not been engaged in the campaign.
Ballot papers must be received by the Victorian Electoral Commission before 4:PM on Friday November 28.
The meeting in Carlton, whilst not that well attended, was never the less informative. If anything it provided an opportunity to meet face to face the candidates for office. The focus of the meeting was generally on the position of Lord mayor with little to no attention given to the Council representatives who are seen as secondary support acts not not the main game.
One of the greatest problems with the current City of Melbourne electoral model is that candidates that nominate for the "leadership team" of Lord mayor and Deputy Lord mayor are in a win or lose election. If they win they are handed the keys to the Limousine and have the right to wear the gold chains and robes of office if they lose they have no opportunity to directly contribute to the cities governance.
The choice of who is elected Lord Mayor is not based on ability, questions of good governance or even policies of the various candidates. Most punters will decide who to support based on public perception and popularity not policies. Many of the Lord mayoral candidates no not have well thought out or detailed policies of governance. Will Fowles "A fresh approach" is still to publish his policies on his web site.
Catherine's Policy of Opposition
Incumbent hopeful Catherine Ng had difficulty after seven years at the helm, in justifying her position. She put forward a range of pet projects and which included a planned Town Hall campaign of opposition to the Labor State Government in 2010. Who whe was proposing to support was not clear. If you listened and believe what Catherine Ng had to say all the faults and problems facing the City where problems of State administration and that her failure to deliver on governance issues and representation did not come into consideration.
Catherine Ng, once again, was in denial about her refusal to subject the City Council to open public review of its representational model. Catherine, along with other candidates, paid lip service and supported a public review of the system sometime in the next term of office, but she failed to explain why on three previous occasions she rejected outright proposals for a public review to take place prior to current election.
Clearly there is an overwhelming need to review Melbourne representational model. Having to endure another four years of poor representation before a review is implements does not instill confidence in the existing incumbent councillors.
Professionalism versus adversarial politics.
Of the nights performances two candidates' political forces stood out as being the only candidates worthy of support.
The star performers would have to have been Nick Columb and Peter McMullin's future team. The rest just fell by the wayside.
Both Nick Columb and Peter McMullin team presented two different and diametrically opposed approaches to governance.
Compliance and perpetuation of much the same with added professionalism.
Peter McMullin has put together an experienced and diversified team capable of working closely with State Government to deliver certain outcomes for the City's future, although they did not come across at the meeting as a dynamic team they are never the less a team worthy of consideration an their campaign is extensive and costly. If you believe that Local government can best meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and business by working closely with the State Government then McMullin is your best choice.
Adversarial polices for Melbourne
If you believe that the role of Local government is to act independent and in an adversarial role then Nick Columb is a candidate that deserves consideration. Nick has provided a fresh, articlulate and passionate campaign even if he is short on campaign funds. He has pulled no punches and calls a spade a spade following the long held tradition of Australian parish politics of old. He was not proposing a people's uprising nor was he proposing compliant subordination to Spring Street or pandering to the wishes of the governing tenants of town hall. If elected Nick Columb would provide an interesting four years to come, his style of leadership would be colorful and as vibrant as Melbourne's Spring Carnival. His forthright criticism of the waste and exuberance in town hall and his manner of doing business gave a clear indication that he was more then capable of advocating a change in direction for the City of Melbourne.
Doyle a familiar dud
The award for dud candidate for the night would go to Robert Doyle's "Activivate" team. Robert Doyle continues to demonstrate his lack of commitment to Melbourne. Doyle did not turn up to either the Carlton or Kensington meetings, instead he left the campaign to be run by his Deputy Lord mayoral candidate Susan Riley. Susan Riley, who was John So's first Deputy Lord mayor back in 2001-2004 (before John So dumped her for Gary Singer) was one of the worst Deputy Lord mayors in Melbourne's history. Her groups policies of reopening Swanston street and building the Edditington tunnel are at complete odds with the direction Melbourne has been heading.
Doyle's "billboard campaign" relys solely on the recognition factor, Doyle is the most well known of all candidates. The fact that he is considered favourite to win highlights one of the greatest problems of the direct election system. It is about recognition not polcies or ability. A tell tale saign of dislike for fpoyule's nomination is the fact that all candidates in this election have placed Doyle last or low on their HTV cards.
Nick Columb summed up more or less the prevailing opinon "Robert Doyle is the sort of person you do not want as Lord mayor". His lack of commitment to this election demonstrates why he failed as opposition leader in 2002 and why, as Nick Columb puts it, "failed politicians should not be allowed to be elected to Town Hall".
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Melbourne City Council Consolidated Councillor Expense Statements 2 December 2004 to 30 September 2008
Note: The above Consolidated expense statement graph does not include an estimated $710,739.72 (John So, Lord Mayor) and $162,049.42 Garry Singer , Deputy Lord Mayor) associated with the cost of proving Limousines for their personal use. The Councillor expense statements also do not include the costs of internal catering, free booze and support staff, which would add a further estimated 400,000-800,000 dollars to the rate payers tab.
Missing (estimated) Local Travel Costs from December 2004 to July 2008(based on last quarter)
$66,694.88 (John So, Lord Mayor) and
$43,540.56 (Garry Singer, Deputy Lord Mayor) for the private use of Council funded Limousines.
Plus
Estimated additional costs (not included above) for the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor's Local Travel expenses over four years
The 1999 Auditors report called on the City Council to make a budget allocation for Councillor expenses and to report on the YTD so as to facilitate budget monitoring of Councillor Expenses
A budget was set for one year but subsequently reporting of budget YTD comparison has been dropped. Reasons unknown. Councillor expenses have an unlimited budget that comes from the general administration budget.
The City Council, on the motion of Carl "Junket and local travel reporter' Jetter refused to provide back dated Council expense statements for the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor's Local Travel - the value published in the last quarter expense statements does not include the costs listed above. Carl Jetter claims his full costs for the use of City Link against the City Council (Even costs associated with private travel by the looks of it. Gary Singer has 100% of his vehicle costs paid for by the City Council including free petrol, insurance,registration, service and depreciation costs. There are questions as to his entitlement to receive this benefit as the the limousine which is also used for personal travel.
The extent that the Council administration will go to to avoid detailed disclosure of Council expenses (You scratch my back and they will scratch yours) never ceases to amaze. This culture of cover-up demonstrates how corrupt and unreliable the Council expense statements are. It is an embarrassment to the Council Auditors who have to endured such unprofessional conduct.
Below a revised comparative graph which includes estimated costs associated with the Lord Mayors and Deputy Lord Mayor (Excluding costs associated with the Lord Mayor's chauffeur [$500,000.00] and Cr Sneddon's child care [$31,898.66])
For a detailed break down and copy of the data table - click here (pdf)
Missing (estimated) Local Travel Costs from December 2004 to July 2008(based on last quarter)
$66,694.88 (John So, Lord Mayor) and
$43,540.56 (Garry Singer, Deputy Lord Mayor) for the private use of Council funded Limousines.
Plus
Estimated additional costs (not included above) for the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor's Local Travel expenses over four years
| Item | John So | Gary Singer |
| Lord Mayor | Deputy Lord Mayor | |
| Driver | $500,000.00 | |
| Registration | $4,000.00 | $4,000.00 |
| Insurance | $6,000.00 | $6,000.00 |
| Depreciation/lease | $50,000.00 | $50,000.00 |
| Total additional est. costs | $710,739.72 | $162,049.42 |
The 1999 Auditors report called on the City Council to make a budget allocation for Councillor expenses and to report on the YTD so as to facilitate budget monitoring of Councillor Expenses
A budget was set for one year but subsequently reporting of budget YTD comparison has been dropped. Reasons unknown. Councillor expenses have an unlimited budget that comes from the general administration budget.
The City Council, on the motion of Carl "Junket and local travel reporter' Jetter refused to provide back dated Council expense statements for the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor's Local Travel - the value published in the last quarter expense statements does not include the costs listed above. Carl Jetter claims his full costs for the use of City Link against the City Council (Even costs associated with private travel by the looks of it. Gary Singer has 100% of his vehicle costs paid for by the City Council including free petrol, insurance,registration, service and depreciation costs. There are questions as to his entitlement to receive this benefit as the the limousine which is also used for personal travel.
The extent that the Council administration will go to to avoid detailed disclosure of Council expenses (You scratch my back and they will scratch yours) never ceases to amaze. This culture of cover-up demonstrates how corrupt and unreliable the Council expense statements are. It is an embarrassment to the Council Auditors who have to endured such unprofessional conduct.
Below a revised comparative graph which includes estimated costs associated with the Lord Mayors and Deputy Lord Mayor (Excluding costs associated with the Lord Mayor's chauffeur [$500,000.00] and Cr Sneddon's child care [$31,898.66])
For a detailed break down and copy of the data table - click here (pdf) Friday, November 14, 2008
Doyle campaign blog suffers from technical difficulty
The planned Herald-Sun Live blog with Melbourne City Council Lord Mayor candidate Robert Doyle was hampered by technical difficulty. the blog was supposed to commence at 2PM today. The link proved by the Herald Sun failed to work.
It is unknown if the fault was due to Robert not showing up or if the Herald Sun just stuffed up. It happens.
Roberts live blog was arrange at short notice Robert had originally refused to participate.
Maybe it was cancelled as a result of a policy free zone... No sign or advertisment
UPDATE BLOG IS NOW LIVE Started late.
Running commentary:
Negative campaign comments
Eddington's Cross City Tunnel
Where is the cost benefit analysis? Little wonder Robert did not become premier of Victoria
Scrape the Direct Election of Lord Mayor:
Junkets are us
Response:
Columb bun fightcome to the focus.
See above comment and link
Policing Melbourne
Open Street Policy
Meeting Attendance
Cost of campaign
Missing Campaign
Business as usual
Monumental Advances
Anna fan
He started late.
It is unknown if the fault was due to Robert not showing up or if the Herald Sun just stuffed up. It happens.
Roberts live blog was arrange at short notice Robert had originally refused to participate.
Maybe it was cancelled as a result of a policy free zone... No sign or advertisment
UPDATE BLOG IS NOW LIVE Started late.
Running commentary:
Negative campaign comments
2:16 [Comment From Debbie]Robert's response:
I have received a lot of negative stuff on Cr Ng. I don't like grubby politics in local government. Was that from you? What will you do to make sure all councillors get along in the best interests of this city? Given you have a background in partisan politics (ie as opposition leader), how can you deal with all councillors in a non-partisan way. The Greens will surely go bananas if you get elected?
Thanks Debbie. It certainly wasn't from me and I make the public pledge that I will only campaign positively. I won't comment on other candidates' campaigns nor will I stoop to negative smear campaigns. I deplore them and I always have. One of the reasons I'm putting my hand up for this job is that I want leave partisan politics behind. Although I belong to a political party of course, I am standing as Robert Doyle with my Activate Melbourne team and I am receiving no support in any way from the Liberal Party. Partisan politics has no place at our Town Hall. I hope I do have the skills to get councillors to work together. We are, after all, there for all of you, not for us. Will I be successful? I'll give it my best shot. As for the Greens, I'm happy to work with them and I hope they would want to work with whoever was the lord mayor.Robert must have a very short memory (Maybe he has been drinking again over lunch) I recall a very angry Nick Columb commenting on Robert Doyle's negative smear campaign against Nick Columb.
Eddington's Cross City Tunnel
2:21 [Comment From Julianne Bell]Reply:
Robert The previous Council voted unanimously to oppose the road tunnel through inner Melbourne, as proposed under the Eddington Review. The community is overwhelmingly opposed to the tunnel which will - if constructed - destroy Royal and Holland Parks plus result in compulsory alienation of homes. Will you attempt to overturn the decision by the previous Council given you are pro tunnel?
I am pro East-West links, Julianne. The model on the table now is the Eddington proposal which I understand the council originally supported, then opposed. I think government would understand that while an east-west solution was required - whether that is at-grade tunnel or rail link it needs to be successful in reducing traffic congestion but also of minimal disruption to existing parkland. So, for instance, is the brickworks and alternative to Holland Park? These would be complex and lengthy negotiations with representations to state government. One final note: given the state of the economy and the withdrawal of a number of private enterprise firms from ppp infrastructure projects, I would seriously enter discussions with the state government about whether this was still on the agenda at all.
Where is the cost benefit analysis? Little wonder Robert did not become premier of Victoria
Scrape the Direct Election of Lord Mayor:
2:26 [Comment From Side show ally]Reply:
The same question asked to McMullin before.. The direct election model for Lord Mayor has failed to deliver good governance and has become a side show where only well healed multi-millionaires or celebrities can afford to run for office. What is your policy and what steps will you take to get rid of the direct election system and return Melbourne to a system where the Lord Mayor is elected and held accountable by the City Council?
I think there are strengths in the system of direct election of the lord mayor, although I concede that a weakness that it could become a plaything of the wealthy. However, in council-elected mayoral contests, I have seen more grubby, backroom, non-transparent back-scratching than you can spoke a stick at. It is rarely a meritocracy and, by the way, you don't get a clear vision and understanding of what the city's leader stands for.What is his policy? For or against or is he also in a policy vacuum? Looks like he is trying to have it both ways. Non committal and lost for ideas.
Junkets are us
2:30 [Comment From Melbcity]
Susan Riley and Carl Jetter, both on your team, were the City of Melbourne's highest spending and most travelled Councillors. Susan Riley, as John So's Deputy Lord Mayor, spent over $20,000 on a junket visit St Petersburg. Will you reign in the costs and number of overseas trips spent on junkets and will you scape the LM limo or can we expect more or less the same as under John So.
Response:
No junkets.
Again non commital and avoidance. he failed to address the question on scraping the Limo aand other questions aksed about Free Booze at counil functions.
Columb bun fightcome to the focus.
2:31 [Comment From Preferences]Doyle's reply:
There seems to be a bun fight between you and Nick Columb over preferences. Wht happened that caused such this fight?
No good crying over spilt milk. I have made the commitment that I will campaign positively and I won't campaign on other candidates or their campaigns. I hate the negative stuff. With me, my word is my bond. When I say will do something, then I will do it.
See above comment and link
Policing Melbourne
2:35 [Comment From Brian Constable]Reply:
Dear Mr Doyle, I was at the Police/Safety Seminar on Monday night and listened to everyone's comments and I think it was Mr McMullin who said that he was going to use Council funds to pay for extra police in the city - Is this possible?
I do not believe it is. No lord mayor can promise you more police in the city. Not even the police minister can do that. Police Command decides. However, I believe we can make convincing arguments to police: we can provide infrastructure to support police; can police return the academy graduates, probationary constables who used to spend their first month in the city back to these duties rather than scattering them throughout Victoria? This would give us 50 to 60 more police every month. Finally, senior police tell me that police now do 25 per cent less foot patrols thatn they did in 2000-01. Can we return to those levels of visible proactive policing through more administrative support for those officers, or conceding that security and safety in our streets and homes is such a critical issue, can we make visible policing our No. 1 priority until we get the problems under control. To me, those uniforms are a deterrent to crime. But they have to be seen on our streets
Open Street Policy
2:40 [Comment From Marco]Reply:
Why on earth do you want to open Swanston St up to traffic? That is one of the nuttiest ideas I've heard during this campaign. A good city is one that is pedestrian, cyclist and public transport friendly. Why this regressive policy?
Swanston St is a failed experiment, Marco. It still has cars, trucks and of course trams as well as frequent taxi and courier traffic. Melbourne is not laid out like a European city around a central square. Our forefathers were not nutty when the city grid design shaped our CBD. The corollary of what you suggest would lead to even greater traffic congestion in Melbourne and begs the question of how we are going to cope when there are 1 million people a day coming into the city. The answer has to lie in a range of solutions - public transport, bicycle, pedestrian, car and motorcycle. Why would we choke one of the major arteries of our city?
Meeting Attendance
2:51 [Comment From jane]Reply:
What will you do to ensure councillors attend council meetings. Catherine Ng said here that she'd only attended 50% of them. Is that good enough?
2:52 Jane, my expectation is that councillors attend unless there is an urgent or legitimate reason like an emergency.
Cost of campaign
2:52 [Comment From campaign]Reply:
Who is paying for your campaign? How much are you spending?
2:54 My campaign is being paid for by donation and fund-raisers. That will be transparently and completely declared at the end of the campaign, whether I am successful or not.What part of the question did Robert not understand. Like Peter McMullin he failed to outline how much he was spending and who was picking up the tab. As they say there is no such thing as a free lunch
Missing Campaign
2:54 [Comment From Gianni]Reply:
I live in Carlton and have seen none of your material, do you not care about the residents?
2:55 Hello Gianni. I'm afraid I do not have the budget to deluge you with materials, but you will certainly be receiving a letter from me in the next couple of days. One of my Activate Melbourne team is Luciano Bini, a long-time Carlton resident and identity who was instrumental in beginnign Spoleto and the Lygon St Festa, and he brings a wealth of Carlton experience to our teamBallots are out there and his promises are still in the mail...
Business as usual
2:57 [Comment From Charles Oscar]Reply:
Hi Robert, what role do you see the City of Melbourne playing in promoting Melbourne as a place to invest and do business? cheers Charles
2:59 Hello Charles. This is one of the most critical questions facing us, particularly as we head for what may be a recession. There are models around the world - New York, London, Singapore - which fulfill this function for cities in a way far superior to what we are doing. It can be done within the existing resources of the City of Melbourne. This will be my major policy release for this weekend, and we will announce our plan on Sunday. It will be called the Melbourne Economic Development AgencyMosquing Melbourne
3:03 [Comment From Jonathan]Reply:
Do you support plans to construct a mosque in Melbourne?
3:03 I don't know of any such plans, Jonathan.Not well informed of the issues. A mosque shoudl be sujevcted to the normal planning process as would apply to another development. No more and no less.
Monumental Advances
3:04 [Comment From Jeff]Reply:
Do you support the erection of a statue commemorating Jeff Kennett's service to Victoria?
3:06 Hello Jeff! (only kidding) Premiers who serve a nominated period of time have a statue erected outside 1 Treasury Place. Unfortunately Jeff did not quite make it but I'm still very proud of the acheivements of his government, particularly during the first term, 1992-96, and getting the state back on its feet, restoring our pride.
Anna fan
3:09 [Comment From Anna]Reply:
I hope you win! I am a huge fan...we desperately need a change :)
3:10 Thanks Anna. I think this is a great place to end my first blog experience. Thank you to everybody who wrote in, and sorry that we had more questions than we could answer, even going a few minutes overtime. Robert.
He started late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)