PETITIONS
Following petitions presented to the house:
Caulfield Park tree removal
To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria:
The petition of the residents of Caulfield and surrounding areas draws to the attention of the house:
the decision by the councillors of the City of Glen Eira to remove or relocate 37 trees of varying maturity and significance within the Crown land of Caulfield Park in order to enlarge two sporting ovals. This decision deviates significantly from the approved master plan for Caulfield Park and was undertaken without any community consultation.
The petitioners request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria expresses its strong disapproval of this action which was undertaken without due process and urges the City of Glen Eira to reverse this decision and explore options that will minimise the impact on the trees while still allowing for the upgrade of sporting facilities.
By Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (533 signatures).
Caulfield Park trees
Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—When I first spoke in this house three years ago I said that ‘Caulfield Park has for more than a century been a suburban oasis for the people of Caulfield, providing an escape to nature’. This is still true; a quick walk through Caulfield Park brings people a sense of sanctuary and quiet, with only the jingle of tram route 3 to remind them that they are in the centre of Melbourne in the great and beautiful suburb of Caulfield. For decades passive enjoyment of the park has coexisted with Caulfield’s great community sporting activities of footy, soccer, cricket, lawn bowls and many other great sports that are a key part of the park.
That sense of quiet was blown away yesterday by the sounds of chainsaws and trucks as the City of Glen Eira, led by the Labor-Greens council, set about destroying or relocating 37 mature and significant trees without any consultation with park users or the community. The council claims that the trees need to be removed in order to create a buffer around the sporting ovals and to increase the size of the ovals. Friends of Caulfield Park submitted to council a well-thought-out alternative proposal that would have had minimum impact on the trees, but it was ignored. This morning I tabled a petition of 533 signatures which shows the strength of community opinion the council is so willing to ignore.
There is significant community anger in Caulfield about the decision by council to ride roughshod over the feelings of residents and carelessly destroy trees of significant environmental and historical value. I join my community in utterly condemning this decision by Glen Eira City Council to sneakily destroy these trees.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 12, 2013 at 6:29 AM
Southwick has got in wrong. This wasn’t and isn’t a Labor/Greens council. Pilling and Sounness are for sure not Greens. They are Newton boys in disguise as is Lobo.
December 12, 2013 at 6:59 AM
What we’ve got here is merely another example of the abuse of power by this administration. Southwick’s attempts to turn this into a political point scoring exercise is totally misplaced. He would be far more credible and earn more brownie points if he targetted the real culprits that sit in executive offices and plot and scheme and trample on what reasonable people would regard as true and accountable local government. He would serve his community far better if he took these stormtroopers to task instead of the poor emasculated and intimidated bunch of no hopers that make up the bulk of councillors.
December 12, 2013 at 8:33 AM
Green TRATIORS thats what they are, stand as Greens, get elected as Greens and then turn into tree trashing vandals. The Greens have lost my support and vote.
December 12, 2013 at 8:14 AM
Good on ya Southwick – political point scoring certainly but it raised awareness of Council’s deplorable actions and disdain for residents.
Shame ya didn’t mention this Council’s godsmacking disregard for petitions. In the words of Jamie Hyams (then Mayor), the time honoured, widely used, democratic process of presenting petitions, is fundamentally flawed because it doesn’t indicate who or how many declined to sign the petition. Councillors have even deplorably voted against accepting petitions which is in itself pointless because without any Councillor follow up (and no Councillor has ever done so) all the Administration does with them is file and forget.
December 12, 2013 at 8:37 AM
Southwick, you need to see the letters sent by Pilling to the residents of Caulfield. Did you care to see? He says ‘all Councillors’ are in agreement in removing the trees. Stop your political nonsense. The four liberals have also endorsed this, once again read Pilling’s letter. Wakeup Southwick, you are a one term government.
December 12, 2013 at 8:37 AM
I suppose our Green hero Pilllling would have rejected this petition if it came before council. Like he did last time. FoCP should now reword the petition and send it to GEC.
December 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Pilling and Souness have turned from Green to Blue. They have joined the dark side as lobo did last year and Delahunty this year.
December 12, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Can Mr Southwick be any more self serving and politically opportunistic. This has happened on his watch,,in his electorate. Paying lip-service just to score political points is a disgrace. Do your job, the electorate demands it.
Friends of Caulfield Park , you should of hitched your wagon to somebody else . Maybe next time a more radical approach is required.
December 12, 2013 at 10:41 AM
I have never seen Greens behave like this, the party should exspell them, talk about going downhill since Bob Brown left the party. It looks like the there like every other tin pot polly “in it for the money”
December 12, 2013 at 11:11 AM
good old Southwick lets MRC get away with Murder in using crown land for a carpark instead of sporting fields then whinges when the jewish clubs dont get ground allocation and then whinges when the council actually does something to help alleviate the shortage. If we could get sports grounds at Caulfield Racecourse then less suitable parks for sports grounds could be full of trees.
December 12, 2013 at 4:56 PM
Although a below average politician Southwick is as least the one player in this outrageous saga that did something so why concentrate on shooting him down.
The outrage should be directed at the Councillors – they allowed this to happen, they were well aware of the spurious arguments and didn’t once call the Administration to order. “Preliminary work” my ass, they didn’t seek or provide information. Focus on them – they have been getting away with this kind of crap for years and will continue to do so for as long as you let them.
Slinging mud at attention to Southwick, leaves Councillors smirking behind the chamber doors and without any intention of changing their behaviour or actually doing their jobs..
December 12, 2013 at 5:05 PM
Nobody is pinpointing what this is all about and it’s not about trees. It’s about power and its abuse. With all the flack that Pilling and Sounness are copping over this I can just imagine Newton whispering in their ear “Don’t worry boys, I’ll take care of you. Don’t listen to all the scumbag activists.” It’s worked with Lobo, and countless others in the past and it’s all about divide and conquer. But when you conquer the aim is to make sure that you get the necessary 5 votes. That brings up another thing to ponder. What are Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, and Okotel getting out of their loyalty to Newton. A monstrous ego is definitely part of it and I’ve my suspicions as to what else, what favours are owed and returned. Magee got himself gesac so that meant some years of lapdog loving. Delahunty has bigger fish to fry so she doesn’t want to stir too much not with elections just around the corner and she probably figures that on most things she doesn’t have the numbers. Now that he’s got his 5 year contract renewed Newton can sit back and laugh his head off at the antics of all these wannabes whilst pulling the strings the entire time.
December 12, 2013 at 6:48 PM
533 names is a piddling number comparatively speaking. I can tell you from one who knows the petition will go to the Clerk of Papers, be consigned to storage before it is disposed of and be largely unread.
December 12, 2013 at 9:37 PM
533 signatures may be “piddling” in your view. If you consider that people work, and these signatures were gathered in less than one week, then I think this is a remarkable turnout and vote of no confidence in this council. Imagine how many signatures might have been gathered if people had more time and didn’t have full time jobs. Thousands upon thousands I would think.
December 12, 2013 at 11:14 PM
I’m referring to the number in terms of petitions. It is small comparatively. Have seen them in tens of thousands. The reality is petitions don’t count for much. Many, if not all, recipients believe a large proportion of the signatories don’t have a real passion but sign because it’s easier than the alternative so long as it’s not something that offends. Surveys have shown few actually read them in totality if at all. It’s part of the reason why Council only reply to the first signatory. And most will tell you letters individually composed (as distinct from form letters which are as useful as petitions) are far more effective.
For petitions or form letters to be effective they need to have at least a reasonably high proportion of the signatories who back it up with activism. Frankly, I’d be surprised if there were more than about 20 that are up in arms about what is, in the broad scheme of things, a relatively minor matter.
I’m more concerned about the allegation that our and other municipal councils ‘burn’ money to ensure their budgetary allocation isn’t reduced come the next round of allocations.
December 13, 2013 at 8:20 AM
Wastage of ratepayers money is rampant in Glen Eira but will not change whilst the Council Audit Committee is sweet with the administration. Gibbs and McLean have been the only “independent’ members of the Committee for over 20 years and never make a fuss and doesn’t Newton just love it that way.
December 13, 2013 at 2:12 PM
The real issue is that there is not one Councillor who has any financial experience. That is why Lipshutz has been on the Committee for 9 years and Magee is the other member. Their heads must be spinning after each meeting! On Tuesday night, be prepared to hear them sing the praises of the Committee but don’t ask them what the Committee actually does. It could get very embarassing.
December 13, 2013 at 3:04 PM
Anon
Instead of this constant whining, why don’t you ask a question of Lipshutz or Magee at the Council meeting? It could be you who gets embarrassed. Getting tired of your prejudice.
December 13, 2013 at 8:37 AM
On the surface over 500 signatures may appear paltry when compared to “tens of thousands” usually achieved over a long period and by many many people on a state/nation wide basis. However, if you consider the length of time, the limited number of collectors and the catchment area then getting 500+ signatures in less than a week becomes significant rather than paltry. Had Council kept to its original schedule (another 4 weeks) then the petition would have had thousands.
As for the argument that most signatories take the path of least resistance when faced with a petition could you please provide some substantiation. Empirical evidence shows it is easier to “dodge” signing a petition than it is to get rid of “door knockers” of other persuasions..
But as some one else said about mud slinging, diverting the discussion to petitions instead of concentrating on the bigger issue of Council’s heavy handed actions. Actions which the Mayor states were missing the details of what and when and yet were unanimously supported by all Councillors without any communication to residents.
As for the allegation of “burning money” – I agree it is a serious mismanagement issue. However, you will never find the answer unless Councillors start doing their jobs by doing what they are legally required to do – namely, overseeing the activities undertaken by the administration in their name and keeping residents informed. Approving “preliminary work” without asking what it involved and when it was to be undertaken and not informing residents just doesn’t cut it.
December 13, 2013 at 11:58 AM
MODERATORS – COMMENT DELETED
December 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM
Mr Southwick – What about the 4 liberal Councillors who also voted to cut the trees. A cheap shot by all means.
December 13, 2013 at 8:27 PM
He does not think just shoots. What has he done
He needs to get grounds from MRC for his AJAX if he wants to be re-be elected.
Has he achieved any thing for Caulfield?