| Your name | Martin Foley | Mark Lopez | Serge Thomann | Josie Young | Paul Joseph Giuliano | Rose Iser | | Bronwyn Pike | Clem Newton-Brown | Maxine Fensom | Rory Killen | Dr Peter Lazzari | Luke Martin | Brian Walters | Katharine Anderson | Kathleen Maltzahn |
| Electorate | Albert Park | Albert Park | Albert Park | Albert Park | Essendon | Essendon | | Melbourne | Prahran | Melbourne | Melbourne | Melbourne | Melbourne | Melbourne | Prahran | Richmond |
| Party | Labor | Liberal | Independent | Family First | Independent | The Greens | | Labor | Liberal | Independent | Australian Sex Party | Independent | Liberal | Greens | Independent | The Greens |
| The current Council and State government has rejected all attempts to review the legislation and to reform the City of Melbourne Act in order to give our City a more democratic, effective and efficient local government. If elected would you call upon the Minister for Local Government to conduct a comprehensive and independent review of the structure of the Council and the electoral system, including requiring at the very least a review of the electoral system every second electoral cycle as is required in other municipalities? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Comment | No response | No response | No response | No response | true democracy is representation by an elected offical | The City of Melbourne should be subject to the same review processes as all Victorian municipalities. In recent legislation this was altered to every third electoral cycle (min 8 yrs, max 12 years between reviews). | | No response | As a former Councillor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Melbourne my personal view is that nothing should be set in stone and we should continue to look at ways of improving things. | No response | There is no question that Melbourne is a unique City in Victoria. The City is a business district, a transport hub, and the location of sites of significant cultural and social importance to Greater Melbourne. This uniqueness is not, however, sufficient grounds to reduce the democratic processes that Council elections should exhibit. I absolutely support a review of Council structure and the electoral system on recurring basis. | Totally open government at every level is fundamental to genuine democracy. | No response | No response | No response | No response |
| Currently Melbourne is the only municipality where councillors are elected for the city as a whole, not for local wards. In CoRBA’s view this reduces councillors’ responsiveness to local concerns. Do you support the resturcture of the Council to reinstate wards? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No response | No response | Yes | Yes |
| Comment | No response | No response | No response | No response | -yes, with an individual coucillor per ward. – accountable | Wodonga, West Wimmera, Wellington, Warrnambool, Wangaratta, Towong, Surf Coast Shire, Southern Grampians, Queenscliffe, Moyne, Moira, Mildura, Indigo, Horsham, Golden Plains, Glenelg, Colac Otway, Benalla, Ararat, Alpine are also unsubdivided municipalities (no wards). The structure of the municipality would be the subject of regular review under point 4 above and the structure should be that which can best serve the needs of the communities of interest within the city as determined through a submission and panel process. | | No response | Having run in election under both systems my personal view is that wards provide a focus for Councillors and dediecated Councillor points of contact for constituents. | No response | Being responsible for a ward facilitates accountability amongst councillors in other municipalities. The Sex Party wants an open relationship with government. Having direct accountability by way of wards opens that relationship, and facilitates the communities’ abilities to advise council of their desires. Given the lack of wards, there is a dilution of responsibility when things go wrong. This is quite undesirable. Melbourne residents are very aware that their City is important to Greater Melbourne. Having councillors elected at a ward-level will not reduce decision-making that takes into account the needs of both residents and people who come to the City for other purposes. | No response | No response | I support a more democratic form of government. Wards are one positive way of achieving this. | No response | No response |
| In addition to the recent re-integration of Kensington and Docklands into our City, there has a significant increase in the resident population in the City of Melbourne. Do you consider that there are now too few Councillors to properly service the municipality and adequately reflect the population growth? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | No response | | No response | No | Yes | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | No response |
| Comment | No response | No response | No response | No response | No response | It is estimated that in 2014, there will be 115,000 people in The City of Melbourne. The number of councillors would also be subject to review under point 4 above. The number should be sufficient to meet the needs of the multiple communities of interest. Residents should be able to expect councillors to be accessible and the demands on councillors should be manageable. It would be arguable that the needs of a capital city do require a smaller ratio of councillor to population. By contrast, Greater Geelong has 12 Councillors to serve 220,000 people. Brimbank, 11 to serve 180,000 and Maribyrnong has 7 councillors to serve 70,000 residents. The number of councillors required is also related to hours dedicated to the role and this is reflected in remuneration. Variations in these may have flow on effects for the number of councillors deemed appropriate. | | No response | Under the current system of each Councillor being responsible for the whole City I do not believe that having more Councillors will reduce workloads. In my exerience dedicated Councillors will try to be on top of every area of responsibility. This may be different under a ward system where individual focus on geographic areas means that for example the local Councillor for South Yarra would not have to be as involved with Carlton or East Melbourne or other areas. | No response | I’ll have to leave this as a ‘maybe’ as there are competing concerns, that should be reviewed. On the one hand, there must be a sufficient number of councillors to reflect population diversity. Too few councillors, and location- or population-specific concerns will be left out. The competing perspective is that council must operate efficiently and cost-effectively. I earlier expressed my support for recurrent review of the council structure. The need for additional, or fewer, councillors should be regularly assessed as part of that recurrent review based on the competing concerns that I have outlined. | No special view | No response | No response | No response | The number of councillors should be reviewed as part of the review required to look at the structure of the Council discussed above. |
| In CoRBAÃs view, Postal voting is vulnerable to fraud. The VEC is not required by law to verify the names or dates of birth on each ballot. Do you agree that Postal voting should be reserved for those unable to go to a polling station due to infirmity or distance, and that attendance voting should be the rule? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | | No response | Yes | Yes | No response | Yes | No response | Yes | Yes | y |
| Comment | No response | No response | No response | No response | as a rule yes, but can differ | Democracy and the right to a secret ballot are compromised by the postal voting system which cannot adequately protect against interference with voting. Arguments about cost do not adequately counter the importance of protecting people’s voting rights through attendance voting. | | No response | In my experience piles ofpostal votes get dumped in apartment blocks leaving the system open to fraud. | No response | Postal voting is vulnerable, however, I am not aware of evidence that fraud is in fact occurring. Postal voting has benefits for more than just the infirm or absent. It is a beneficial component of our electoral system that allows for convenient participation in elections for people in a range of circumstances. I would oppose restrictions to postal voting until I became convinced that it was in fact compromising the outcome of elections. That does not appear to be happening at a scale that would affect outcomes. | No response | No response | No response | No response | No response |
| Do you consider that Councillors should elect the Lord Mayor and Deputy rather than those positions being directly elected? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | No | | No response | No | No | Yes | No | No response | Yes | No response | No response |
| Comment | No response | No response | No response | No response | judged by your piers | This should be put to consultation with the residents of The City of Melbourne. Direct election of the Lord Mayor gives residents a greater say in the election than an indirect appointment of councillors. Improving the voting eligibility within The City of Melbourne to give greater weight to the principle of ‘one vote, one value’ and remove anomalies of voting eligibility would improve the process of direct election. Internal appointment is vulnerable to factional and party deals and arrangements. | | No response | I believe that the City benefits from a Lord Mayor who has some wider base in the community. | No response | Nomination within the council facilitates efficiency. For example, a few years ago, the City of Brisbane (who also have a popularly elected Lord Mayor) elected a Liberal Lord Mayor though the Council was Labor dominated. I recall reading that the Labor councillors declared smoking prohibited in the main street of Brisbane, and the Lord Mayor ordered it permitted later the same day. If I remember correctly, this resulted in a week-long stand off with ‘no smoking’ signs being put up and torn down. It was an absurd situation. | It must be a truly democratic choice open to all voters. | No response | No response | not sure on this one. | No response |
| Other than in relation to major developments in the CBD, there is no formal mechanism for facilitating collaboration or information sharing between the levels of government – thus Council is often ignored or sidelined by the State government. If elected, would you support the establishment a broader inter-governmental mechanism which would enable integrated decision-making between the State Government and the Melbourne City Council? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | No response | | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No response | Yes | Yes | No response |
| Comment | No response | No response | No response | No response | No response | Potentially – however, as a model for inter-governmental planning, the Development Assessment Committees are flawed and should be abolished. Any mechanism must retain local decision making powers and policies and third party rights of notice and appeal. | | No response | My personal view is that there needs to be better collaboration bewteen Council and Sate Government. | No response | Absolutely! The lack of information sharing between levels of government and even between different state authorities is ridiculous. It results in duplication of research, contradictory intentions, and a lot of wasted time. At the very least, a collaborative effort should produce a coherent plan. Preferably, where Council and State responsibilities overlap, an integrated inter-governmental approach will be adopted. | No response | No response | No response | No response | I support better coordination, but it must not come at the cost of respect for local government decisions. On the matter of planning rules, the Greens support a rule-based planning system. |
| Which of these statements best reflect your views about community involvement in planning (select as many as you like)? | No response | No response | No response | Ordinary citizens have a right to be engaged in planning at all stages – strategy and individual developments. To the extent that ordinary citizens have a role it should be limited to consultation on specific developments. Councillors and representatives of residents and business interests should take part in discussions on any planning applications considered at State Government level.There should be a review of the State governmentÃs planning authority in relation to large scale project developments, with a view to greater transparency and Council acquiring greater planning responsibility. The City requires urgent reform of the planning system to ensure that broad planning parameters are based on genuine community consultation, and that individual decisions are based on those parameters. There should be public advertisement and the right of citizens to appeal against development in all parts of the municipality. | To the extent that ordinary citizens have a role it should be limited to consultation on specific developments. Councillors and representatives of residents and business interests should take part in discussions on any planning applications considered at State Government level. Councillors and representatives of residents and business interests should take part in discussions on any planning applications considered at State Government level. There should be a review of the State governmentÃs planning authority in relation to large scale project developments, with a view to greater transparency and Council acquiring greater planning responsibility. The City requires urgent reform of the planning system to ensure that broad planning parameters are based on genuine community consultation, and that individual decisions are based on those parameters. There should be public advertisement and the right of citizens to appeal against development in all parts of the municipality. | Ordinary citizens have a right to be engaged in planning at all stages – strategy and individual developments.Councillors and representatives of residents and business interests should take part in discussions on any planning applications considered at State Government level. There should be a review of the State governmentÃs planning authority in relation to large scale project developments, with a view to greater transparency and Council acquiring greater planning responsibility. The City requires urgent reform of the planning system to ensure that broad planning parameters are based on genuine community consultation, and that individual decisions are based on those parameters. Local governments in consultation with their communities should be able to set mandatory height limits for sites. VCAT and the Planning Minister should not be able to over-ride these. Councils may choose to alter these for applications that meet high environmental or social benefits – but should only do so through a formal process and in consultation with the community. | | No response | Ordinary citizens have a right to be engaged in planning at all stages – strategy and individual developments. Councillors and representatives of residents and business interests should take part in discussions on any planning applications considered at State Government level.There should be a review of the State governmentÃs planning authority in relation to large scale project developments, with a view to greater transparency and Council acquiring greater planning responsibility. The City requires urgent reform of the planning system to ensure that broad planning parameters are based on genuine community consultation, and that individual decisions are based on those parameters. There should be public advertisement and the right of citizens to appeal against development in all parts of the municipality.The culture of secrecy and sham community consultations under Minister Madden must stop. The public are not fools to be locked out of planning decisions. | Ordinary citizens have a right to be engaged in planning at all stages – strategy and individual developments. Councillors and representatives of residents and business interests should take part in discussions on any planning applications considered at State Government level. There should be a review of the State governmentÃs planning authority in relation to large scale project developments, with a view to greater transparency and Council acquiring greater planning responsibility. The City requires urgent reform of the planning system to ensure that broad planning parameters are based on genuine community consultation, and that individual decisions are based on those parameters. There should be public advertisement and the right of citizens to appeal against development in all parts of the municipality. | Ordinary citizens have a right to be engaged in planning at all stages – strategy and individual developments. Councillors and representatives of residents and business interests should take part in discussions on any planning applications considered at State Government level. Councillors and representatives of residents and business interests should take part in discussions on any planning applications considered at State Government level. There should be a review of the State governmentÃs planning authority in relation to large scale project developments, with a view to greater transparency and Council acquiring greater planning responsibility. The City requires urgent reform of the planning system to ensure that broad planning parameters are based on genuine community consultation, and that individual decisions are based on those parameters. There should be public advertisement and the right of citizens to appeal against development in all parts of the municipality. | Ordinary citizens have a right to be engaged in planning at all stages – strategy and individual developments. | No response | The City requires urgent reform of the planning system to ensure that broad planning parameters are based on genuine community consultation, and that individual decisions are based on those parameters. | Ordinary citizens have a right to be engaged in planning at all stages – strategy and individual developments. | Ordinary citizens have a right to be engaged in planning at all stages – strategy and individual developments. Councillors and representatives of residents and business interests should take part in discussions on any planning applications considered at State Government level.There should be a review of the State governmentÃs planning authority in relation to large scale project developments, with a view to greater transparency and Council acquiring greater planning responsibility. There should be public advertisement and the right of citizens to appeal against development in all parts of the municipality. |
| Do you support mandatory (ie non-discretionary) height limits on buildings? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | | No response | Yes | Yes | No response | Yes | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Add comment if you wish | No response | No response | No response | No response | No response | Local governments in consultation with their communities should be able to set mandatory height limits for sites. VCAT and the Planning Minister should not be able to over-ride these. Councils may choose to alter these for applications that meet high environmental or social benefits – but should only do so through a formal process and in consultation with the community. | | No response | Cities such as Paris and London seem to have preserved their lower scale heritage buildings. We should do the same. | No response | It is a reality that the population of Melbourne is growing and greater residence density in some areas is unavoidable if we want to ensure every citizen has convenient access to services such as public transport and healthcare, et cetera. Concerns about matters such as height restrictions are often prompted by concern that the city will lose its character or amenity. I feel that Melbourne has, so far, done a rather good job of preserving its culture and special qualities despite growing significantly over the decades. Rather than oppose greater urban density outright, I prefer to acknowledge that Melbourne will grow by millions in the next few decades, and I prefer that we develop an urban plan that will preserve what we love about our city while acknowledging the realities of growth. Height limits may be very appropriate in areas with historic architecture, for example, while other areas are permitted more growth. I would hate to see that kind of urban sprawl that is occurring in Sydney happen here. This, of course, is a personal opinion and on-going community discussion would be required before a resolution is determined. | Reduce the uncontrolled rush to even greater population density in the City of Melbourne. We have been copying overseas models that ruin big cities for too long. | No response | In many cases this could be extended to building envelopes as a whole. | No response | No response |
| Do you agree that urgent reform of the role of VCAT is required to restore its task of providing a forum for ordinary citizens to appeal against development decision without incurring prohibitive costs? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Comment | No response | No response | No response | No response | No response | No response | | No response | As a planning barrister I do feel that the original intent of VCAT to be a low cost Tribunal has morphed into a forum for developers to present highly skilled teams of expensive consultants. The residents are often at a huge disadvantage. Developers are happy to sink money into their appeals because they are gambling on getting eg extra storeys. For residents there is no such pot of gold at the end of the process. I am not sure what the solution is though….perhaps looking into a “planning aid” scheme? | No response | The provision of cheap access to appeal and justice is an extremely forward-thinking policy. | VCAT is a farce. It always sides with government authorities while pretending to be friendly to individual citizens. It should be charged with false advertising. | No response | VCAT should be limited to review of process, not reconsideration of decisions from the outset. | After having spent about 5 years at VCAT (FOI’s) I know what it can cos. The “peoples’ court”, is nothing of the sort!! | Bringing in a rule-based planning system would transform VCAT, as its role would only be where there has been a brach of process. This would mena that residents would not be faced with the need to raise huge amounts for legal fees at VCAT. |
| How would you otherwise improve the certainty of planning outcomes in our municipality? | No response | No response | No response | Involve people at an earlier stage. Remove State government from the process. | -structure plans -MSS -planning scheme amendments -hieght restrictions etc | Transform ResCode discretionary guidelines to mandatory standards. Make provision in the VPS for respect for local planning policies and overlays. | | No response | Overhaul of the Act and the Planning Schemes. | more involvement and discussion with the broader community before decision are made | No response | Have ALL the information available to everyone. No secret deals. No meetings behind closed doors. | No response | I would move to the kind of prescriptive approach that has been successfully adopted in Vancouver and other cities, engaging the community in making plans with clear goals that are then not subject to discretion. | Keep Madden out of it for a start. | Introduce rule-based planning Allow height limits Improve ESD and access requirements in planning Integrate planning to include better consideration of transport education, open space and other community requirements. |
| What would you do to strengthen and focus the powers of Heritage Victoria in realtion to planning and development matters? | No response | No response | No response | Ensure that it is involved at the commencement of planning. | on major developments and in heritage areas there assesment should account for 50% of proposal | Maintain third party rights for planning applications, reviewing where these have been removed and legislating for third party rights under the Heritage Act. Undertake consultation on the recommendations from the 2007 Heritage Overlay Review. | | No response | Encourage greater involvement at the planning stage of a development and greater participation in planning appeals. | keep our beautiful heritage buildings and not allow massive ugly new constructions to replace our old and lovely buildings | Needless to say, Melbourne’s architectural and cultural heritage are important to the citizens of the city, as well as contributing to positioning Melbourne as a world-class city. Decisions impacting upon Heritage Victoria’s recommendations certainly must undergo open community consultation. Individual citizens value the city’s heritage highly, and decisions that may impact upon the city’s heritage would be all the better protected with community involvement. | Act as an independent public advocate and in parliament to protect and preserve Heritage buildings. | No response | I would repeal s 73(1)(b) of the Heritage Act which leaves open the prospect that considerations of profit prevail over heritage values. | Not sure, but there must be a way to do it. | Rule-based planning would strengthen consideration of heritage |
| Should car parking be required in all new developments – commercial, sporting, cultural? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | No response | | No response | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No response | No | Yes | Car parking requirements should be considered in the context of alternate transport (good public transport, share cars, bicycle parking) Where care parking is not required, protection of existing residential car parking access should be considered. (eg parking permits cannot be extended to users of new developments). |
| Comment | No response | No response | No response | No response | with real ratios | Loading bays and disabled parking should be included as appropriate. Car-parking requirements should be measured according to maximum rather than minimum standards and measures should be included to provide for sustainable transport use – such as cycling facilities and showers and no issue of on-street permits. | | No response | Not necessarily. We must reduce the number of cars on our roads. However, new developments without parking should not result in greater pressure for existing residents. For example, if an apartment has no car parking it should not eligible for a parking permit. | No response | Absolutely! It would be ideal if everyone would use public transport but, of course, this is not an option for all. Until parking is more readily available, encouraging the inclusion of such facilities is desirable. | | No response | Whilst I support a paradigm shift to less cars, this should not be used as a way to get cheaper developments which do not serve the wider community and which cause parking problems for neighbours. Merely restricting car spaces will not be enough to get people out of cars. But some move in that direction will be inevitable. | No response | No response |
| Do you support the further development of freeways or tollways to move traffic around the inner city, such as Westlink and the ‘Eddington Tunnel’? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | No | | No response | Yes | No | No | | No response | No | No response | No response |
| Comment | No response | No response | No response | No response | No response | I support an increase in public transport to move people around all parts of the city on safe, fast and frequent public transport. | | No response | Subect to a proper cost/benefit analysis I would support it. | No response | I would prefer to see investment in an adequate and effective ‘metro’ style public transport system to ease congestion on the roads. | I support every effort to direct traffic away from central Melbourne. | No response | The proposed Westlink would create gridlock in Docklands, West Melbourne, and Kensington. It should not proceed. | it’s time our rail system was nade to work. | No response |
| Do you support the new underground rail line between Footscray and the Domain? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | No response | No response | No | Yes | No response |
| Add comment if you wish | No response | No response | No response | No response | No response | There are benefits in starting with an underground link such as this. Some concerns can be raised regarding the location of stations and the need for further links following this, but there is a need to create an alternative path into the CBD that does not go through Nth Melbourne station and this is one way of achieving this. | | No response | Subject to a proper cost/benefit analysis I would support this. | No response | No response | See 16 | No response | The benefits of this line remain unproven. It does not intersect with the northern lines to Craigieburn and Upfield, and the new station at Arden is only 700 metres from North Melbourne – and hence within its catchment. The stations along Swanston St will need to be many storeys underground to enable the line to pass under the Yarra, and interconnection with Melbourne Central and Flinders St will be very difficult. The Domain is already well serviced with transport, and Caulfield (to which the line is supposed ultimately to proceed) already has a perfectly good rail connection to Flinders St. | No response | No response |
| Should the ìCongestion Taxî on full day car parking be [choose 1] ï Removed? ï Continued in its present form? ï Expanded to be a tax on entry to the CBD by all private cars? | No response | No response | No response | Removed? | Removed? | Replaced by a tax on entry to the CBD by all private cars? | | No response | No response | Replaced by a tax on entry to the CBD by all private cars? | No response | Continued in much like its present form? | No response | Replaced by a tax on entry to the CBD by all private cars? | No response | No response |
| Add comment if you wish | No response | No response | No response | No response | No response | I support incentives for people to change their means of transportation to sustainable forms of transport. | | No response | I would need to do more research on this matter. | No response | I am inclined to support replacing it with a tax on entry to the CBD as I am aware that that has proven effective in London, for example. However, I have not seen research specifically on how these proposals would affect the people of Melbourne so would want to see a cost-benefit analysis before committing myself. | No response | No response | Any such tax on entry should be accompanied by a better public transport system – including 24 hour transport for a 24 hour city. | it is open to fraud as it is, so I don’t know the answer to this question | No response |
| Do you agree with the current approach to positioning of Super Tram Stops? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | No | No response | | No response | No response | No | Yes | Yes | No response | Yes | No response | No response |
| Add comment if you wish | No response | No response | No response | No response | No response | I don’t know enough about the concerns people may have and would support measures to improve safety and accessibility of tram-users and pedestrians. | | No response | Question is too broad to answer in relation to all Super Stops. | No response | Yes with a but… I would support the way that the super tram stops are being rolled out, but it needs to occur with a more integrated and efficient public transport network to realise local community benefit. | No response | No response | No response | Disabled people such as myself, rarely risk getting on a tram, so what’s the point. | No response |
| Should there be increased ëpedestrian onlyà streets in the city? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No response | Yes | Yes | No response |
| Add comment if you wish | No response | No response | No response | No response | some areas | No response | | No response | the closure of Lt Collins and Flinders Lane at lunchtimes is great. | No response | In line with my opinions calling for a more effective ‘metro’ style public transport system, cities should be significantly handed over to pedestrians. This is subject, of course, to a metro-style system being put in place. | No response | No response | No response | but there is actually no such thing now! | No response |
| Do you support the reoval of all car parking from the heritage listed Yarra Prk and the provision of adequate public transport and purpose-built nearby parking? | No response | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | | No response | No response | Yes | Yes | Yes | No response | Yes | Yes | No response |
| Add comment if you wish | No response | No response | No response | No response | in all councils across cbd it is illegal to use rec /grounds for parking | No response | | No response | Would need further information to properlay answer this. | No response | Absolutely! | No response | No response | It is shameful to use this beautiful park for cars for over 220 days a year. We ran the Commonwealth Games without using this as a carpark, and there is no need for the practice to continue. | No response | No response |