A campaign pain

CANDIDATES for council elections could soon be unable to campaign for election on any issues, on the grounds they are making a pre-judgment.
This is part of more and more restrictive controls that State Government is placing on local government democracy.
The proper process for democracy is debate and voting.
But a Supreme Court decision over a planning application in the City of Hobsons Bay, now known as the ‘Winky Pop’ decision, has turned local government planning on its head.
Don’t laugh, because it really is called ‘Winky Pop’.
A councillor took a stand against an amendment to the planning scheme to allow a development.
The matter was taken to court and his vote in the council declared invalid because it was said he had prejudged the matter.
Because the decision was lost by one vote, this was significant.
My view is that a councillor who makes a stand on any issue, does not compromise his or her vote when the matter is closing, because of previous views having been expressed.
Controversial matters usually, as we are now seeing Berwick Village, involve considerable discussion for and against proposals.
Sometimes discussion is vigorous.
Councillors should be free to make their final vote based on those debates because that is the democratic process.
Many times in history politicians have changed their minds on issues because debate on the motion before the chamber has been persuasive enough and points have been raised to cause a change of thinking.
Any sensible councillor would argue that he or she is open to persuasion based on factual argument.
Although all too often I have seen a change because a deal has been done.
This Winky Pop fiasco is about as stupid as its name sounds.
It is a social tragedy.
The two Edrington Ward councillors took no overt position at a Berwick public meeting when more than 150 people gathered to protest about the proposed Lyall Road development.
They consequently generated the feeling in some residents’ minds that they were not opposed to the unpopular building plans.
Surely under the judgment on ‘Winky Pop’ this was also a show of pre-conception and therefore they should abstain from voting on the matter when it comes before the council.
Why wouldn’t they tell the meeting where they stood on the application?
They could possibly have had different views.
Why were they so united on saying nothing, except to offer to help people do what people already knew how to do – write a letter.
Why didn’t they write a letter to the Minister for Planning and advise him about the community discontent over this proposal and give the people who elected them into office as community representatives some representation?
Let the letter be seen in the press so that we know there was representation.
Why is it that a meeting called by the Berwick Village Chamber of Commerce filled the RSL Hall to overflowing?
Surely that was a message, ‘Winky Pop’ or not.
Why not put this court decision to the test?
My view is that it could be turned over if we had an effective opposition in Victoria.
However, it appears that this public meeting was the last stand for the fight for Berwick Village to retain heritage type development.
I will be surprised if Casey Council votes against this application when it comes before the council in the near future.
So the concept of a village atmosphere will have gone and the town will be no different to most others once this type of development becomes the norm.
Years of meetings and strategies put in place were meaningless and a waste of time to the extent that the people of Berwick have been disenfranchised.