GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

December 1, 2011

How Good Is ‘Best Value’ Reporting?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

From the Local Government Act: 208B. Best Value Principles

The Best Value Principles are-

(a) all services provided by a Council must meet the quality and cost standards required by section 208D;

(b) subject to sections 3C(2)(b) and 3C(2)(e), all services provided by a Council must be responsive to the needs of its community;

(c) each service provided by a Council must be accessible to those members of the community for whom the service is intended;

(d) a Council must achieve continuous improvement in the provision of services for its community;

(e) a Council must develop a program of regular consultation with its community in relation to the services it provides;

(f) a Council must report regularly to its community on its achievements in relation to the principles set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).

208G. Report on Best Value Principles compliance – At least once every year a Council must report to its community on what it has done to ensure that it has given effect to the Best Value Principles.”

Thus sayeth the law! How Council responds to the law via its compulsory ‘Best Value Report’ is another matter. We’ve uploaded the full document here and note that it is again well hidden on council’s website – so much for ‘reporting to the community’!!!

There are many services included. We’ve decided to highlight the ‘Traffic Management’ section and ask readers to contemplate whether the intent of the Local Government Act is indeed fulfilled via the following –

Service profile:

The Traffic Management Unit manages the Council’s traffic and parking responsibilities. This includes developing policies/strategies on traffic management planning; investigating concerns/issues relating to road safety, traffic efficiency, parking allocation, etc. and managing the capital works program.

Review outcomes:

Quality and cost standards

The major quality standard set for the service is customer satisfaction, in accordance with the Annual Community Satisfaction Survey conducted by the State Government.

The service achieved a rating of 58%. Whilst this result is lower than last year, it is in the top bracket of scores for “all Councils”, which ranged from 53% to 61%.
All capital works projects completed improved identified safety issues.
The service has met all cost standards except for the amount for the Traffic Engineering contract which was reflective of extra resources being employed for projects such as the C60 Amendment (MRC), and the preparation of Council’s Towards Sustainable Transport Strategy.

Responsive

The Service has been responsive to community needs by:

Meeting with external stakeholders e.g. Municipal Association Victoria, Department of Justice, Department of Transport and Department of Planning and Community Development.
Implementing the Road Safety Strategy to achieve safety outcomes.
Implementing the capital works program to achieve safety outcomes.
Conducting regular meetings with internal and external stakeholders to respond to emerging issues.
Reviewing the Annual Community Satisfaction Survey conducted by the State Government to understand community views.
Efficiently responding to complaints and enquiries.
Involvement with Metropolitan Transport Forum to tackle transport issues.
Preparing Council’s Towards Sustainable Transport Strategy.

The above measures enhanced service delivery in the following ways:

Improved residential amenity and safety in local streets.
Educating drivers about speeding, by using the speed advisory trailer.
Improved shopping centre safety (Elsternwick).
Improved school safety through the employment of 63 school crossing supervisors assisting approximately 15,000 school children per day.
Improved road safety under the capital works program.
Application of Council policy restricting the issue of residential parking permits to residents in new developments in high parking activity locations.
Resolving residents’ parking concerns through careful readjustment of the critical balance between parking supply and demand.

Accessible

The service is available Monday to Friday 8.30am–5pm at the Council offices.

Continuous improvement

Capital projects completed	14
Traffic & Parking Management customer requests	4255
Traffic counts and surveys	133
Council applications for VicRoads funding	8
Council funded improvements	$767,055
Community consultations	50
Court prosecutions handled	74
Supervised school crossings	63

Regular consultation

Consultation during the year included the Annual Community Satisfaction Survey; surveys of interested parties on specific issues; feedback via Council’s Customer Tracking System, highlighting issues and concerns raised by the community; regular meetings with internal and external stakeholders, and meetings with shop owners in local shopping centres.

Quality and Cost Standards	Target	Performance
Customer Satisfaction.	60% or above in the Annual Community Satisfaction Survey.	58%
Job requests actioned and completed.	100% of responses to customer requests completed within five working days.	100%
	90% of detailed investigations completed within one month.	98%
Cost of managing job requests.	Contract amount in tender is not exceeded.	Contract amount exceeded by 17.9%*

*In order to deliver the Transport Strategy a three day a week staff member was increased to full time to ensure delivery of all Strategy actions.

November 30, 2011

‘Please Explain!’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

From the flood of comments we’ve received on the Newton reappointment and upcoming Mayoral election there is clearly keen interest out there in the community. We’ve basically summarised the range of comments and present them below as a series of questions – many of which need to be answered by councillors themselves since the Councillor Code of Conduct tells us that the public has a right to hear the reasons and logic behind each councillor’s vote! We therefore welcome their responses and also ask readers to provide their ‘answers’ to the following:

Why didn’t the majority of councillors choose to advertise?
Why after 12 stormy years with Newton at the helm did the gang choose to reappoint?
What really went on behind the closed doors of the Special Committee?
Should the public really believe that these councillors are so enamoured with Newton’s performance that the decision to reappoint was inevitable – keeping in mind GESAC; more bullying allegations; more Municipal Inspector investigations; more ombudsman’s investigations; more rate rises; more service charges; more planning objections; more lawyers than you can count; more secrecy and lack of transparency; general discontent in the community, etc. etc. etc.
Were any (undue) pressures brought to bear as in 2005?
What will be the legacy of another two years of Newton?
Will Hyams, if elected Mayor, enhance governance or continue along the same slippery path as Esakoff?
Why has Lobo so dramatically aligned himself with the gang?
Do any of these 9 councillors deserve re-election if they stand?
Will Liberal party backers/supporters of certain councillors be dismayed at the current turn of events?
Will the presumed ongoing Municipal Inspector’s and Ombudsman’s reports be another whitewash?
Has this Council reached its lowest point in the eyes of the community?

November 29, 2011

The Leader: ‘Newton’s Green Light’

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[18] Comments

Glen Eira CEO keeps job and pledges to complete sustainable lighting project

Newly reappointed Glen Eira chief Andrew Newton is hoping cost savings will appease residents who wanted him out.

The 54-year-old father of two said he was looking forward to finishing projects he had started, such as creating sustainable street lighting that would save the council $250,000 a year.

A special committee, at a meeting closed to the public, resolved to extend Mr Newton’s contract until April 2014.

Mr. Newton, who has held the top job since 2000, will be paid $271,000pa plus super and has the use of a hybrid Camry.

Residents behind the Glen Eira Debates blog created an online petition in a push for the council to advertise the job and encourage fresh applicants.

But Mr Newton said people criticising his reappointment should understand it was common practice. “Numerous councils have reappointed their CEO,” he said. “The (Local Government) Act gives councils the choice whether to reappoint their CEO or advertise the job.”

Mr Newton said he was looking forward to converting 5000 street lights to new-technology globes. “The project will cut council’s total green house emission by 15 per cent,” he said. “Glen Eira already has the lowest emissions per capita of any metro council and this will cut running costs by $250,000 per annum.”

He said the council had “important work to address in our ageing population, government reforms to kindergarten, increasing public open space, providing extra housing while protecting neighbourhood character.”

Louise Clifton-Evans

November 26, 2011

Value for Money: How Do We Know?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

Below are some extracts from the last Auditor General’s report. We highlight these as particularly relevant to Glen Eira and the manner in which service performance is assessed and reported. It is not enough to have a performance measure as simply ‘investigation’ and a satisfactory outcome listed as ‘investigation completed’ as was the case with the ‘investigation’ regarding the location of another site for the Caulfield Park Depot. There are countless similar measures in the Community Plan, and dare we say it, probably in the CEO performance appraisal KPIs.

The Auditor General’s findings are not new, and admittedly, Glen Eira is not the sole culprit. Residents however need to insist that every consultation and policy includes thorough evaluation techniques so that we can have greater confidence as to whether or not we are getting value for money.

“Councils have yet to fully embrace performance reporting and the non-financialindicators of many are of limited relevance to ratepayers and residents. Councilscontinue to adopt a compliance approach to performance reporting. As a result, the performance reporting framework has yet to deliver relevant and appropriate information to the community on the quality of services delivered and achievement of outcomes by local councils.

Our review of a selection of performance statements identified that a large number of indicators related to key strategy areas are activity-based, focusing on whether an activity is completed rather than the impact of the activity. Councils continued to adopt a ‘compliance-centric’ approach to performance information and used the minimum legislative requirement when preparing performance statements as the maximum disclosure standard.

Councils have yet to fully implement previous audit recommendations and to produce performance reports which drive council outcomes and accountability by being relevant and appropriate to stakeholder needs.

• KSAs were activity-based with the sole measure being whether the activity was completed. Any effectiveness cannot be determined when it is not possible to determine the extent of progress toward, or achievement of, the councils strategic objectives.
• Effectiveness measures are being inconsistently applied by councils. Some measures will be time-based while other measures such as quality, cost and quantity are often not being used thus not providing a balanced approach to the basis of measurement.
• When quantity or cost targets were used, there was no information provided on how these targets had been established and no basis for assessing whether the targets were realistic, easily achievable or a ‘stretch’ target.

The measures used by the selected councils to determine effectiveness were often time-based. Other measures such as quality, cost and quantity were not always considered. Councils had not provided a balanced approach to the basis of measurement. When quantity or cost targets were used, there was no information provided on how these targets had been established and no basis for assessing if the target set was realistic, easily achievable or a ‘stretch target

Other areas of weakness identified include:

• continued reliance on community satisfaction surveys as the sole basis of measuring activities of the council
• use of short-hand descriptors for performance measures, that do not provide users with necessary context and meaning, this means the reporting provides little insight into what is being measured.

November 25, 2011

GESAC: ‘Information’ or Hard Sell?

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[14] Comments

The minutes of 22^nd November at long, long last, contained a measly two and a half page ‘report’ on GESAC. We had been promised a full report and have previously commented on the lack of detail contained in this Pools Steering Committee Meeting minutes. We therefore hoped against hope that at the actual Council Meeting Lipshutz might enlighten the community further as to the financial state of affairs, the basketball fiasco, the opening dates, and a myriad of other issues. Here’s a summary of what he said.

LIPSHUTZ: Stated that the committee meets monthly and last meeting was 3^rd November and ‘a number of matters were discussed…..the building completion program….originally slated to finish in mid September (never realistic) aiming for mid December…’and we until quite recently been told ….that was a very achievable date….builder has run into a number of problems…missed construction…we have…two fantastic pool managers….and they have been on the ball throughout this whole program….they have required the builder to rectify…(issues of labour and shortages of materials which means the pool won’t open in December)….we believe….late January or February….far better to have it done properly (than) a rushed job’……’no fault at all on our project managers, where the fault lies is….with the builder. (Council has done everything it can including) ‘liquidated damages…and the builder clearly does not wish to pay those damages (but it’s out of his hands)…..there are positives….the pool is progressing very well….water slide now constructed….(nearly 3000 members)…demonstrates there are people who want to go there and be members….(Pool has plenty of) fantastic programs – (sprint pool – ‘one of the best in Australia’; ‘lessons available 7 days a week’; ….small classes….continuous learning…communication feedback…Little Buccaneers….learn to swim classes…academy of swimming….dolphins for age 7 to 10….seniors ….special needs….’pool has been designed to ensure that people with disabilities can enter the pool’….’private lessons…school programs…birthday parties….leisure centre…..play, cannons, …adult programs…basketball stadium ‘will be used for a number of organisations’….competitive basketball for young kids….soccer….casual hire….netball….mornings and evenings….partnership with Marriot support services….training and competition….gymnasium ‘told at outset that whatever we build’ was going to be ‘too small’….’because gymnasiums attract people’…

TANG: point of order about speaking time.

ESAKOFF: asked for mover for extension of time. Moved Pilling and seconded Hyams. ‘Another 3 minutes’. Carried unanimously.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘gymnausium will have (several programs) nutrition’…boxing…body balance…body pump…yoga…tai chi….’developed for gesac’….ELDERLY…’warming pool is one of the best in Australia and has been designed that way’…physios, ….massage…..young families…with children a crèche…..’those are the things that we have….developed’….’disappointing that (it won’t be open) in December…..everyone has been pressing the builder….despite all that there is no possibility of opening in December….

MAGEE: Said he would have liked it to be open in November or December but ‘I’m just as happy for it to be built properly…..it wouldn’t be fair to try and rush it….this acquatic centre will be with us for the next 100 years….(and in a few years find out that things are wrong with it)…because someone rushed it…if it takes an extra month….I’m more than happy to put up with…knowing that the quality that we expect….(Went on to suggest two possible names for the slides – Anaconda, & Little Worm).

November 23, 2011

Auditor General: Council At ‘High Risk’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

The Auditor General of Victoria has released his report into the financial sustainability of local governments. The full report is available at: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20111123-Local-Govt/20111123-Local-Govt.pdf

Below are some lowlights from his report, plus an extract from Council’s Chief Financial Officer’s response to the findings.

“Buloke Shire Council was again rated high risk and Glen Eira City Council increased from low to high risk”.

“The overall financial sustainability risk for inner metropolitan councils for 2010–11 was low. However, Glen Eira City Council was assessed as high risk. Glen Eira’s liquidity ratio fell below one in 2010–11. Its cash assets were used to fund building of the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre. This also increased the council’s non-current assets. Based on its forward plans, Glen Eira will borrow additional funds to complete the centre, thus keeping the liquidity ratio forecast for the next three years between 0.94 and 1.05″.

Peter Swabey’s response: “Over the last few years, we have forecast that our liquidity ratio would drop to a level of approximately 1, as we have invested heavily in our capital works progrms and have borrowed to complete construction of a major Sports & Acquatic Centre redevelopment (please note that the Centre is expected to operate at a cash surplus). Given that all other indicators for Glen Eira are green (i.e. Underlying Result; indebtedness; Self financing; Capital Replacement and Renewal Gap), we feel that an overall rating of red is a bit severe. A liquidity ratio around 1 indicates that we are fully utilising ratepayer funds to maintain a sustainable infrastructure base (supported by a high Renewal Gap indicator and high Capital Replacement Ratio)”.

COMMENTS

Swabey’s letter is dated 3rd November 2011. So, how long has Council known this rating was coming? Why was nothing stated at the November 2nd Council Meeting?
Is it mere coincidence that the CEO reappointment occurred prior to the release of this information and did Councillors know it was coming? If they did, then what impact did this have on their performance appraisal of the CEO?
Have residents been sold a furphy the whole way along the GESAC journey?
What impact will this report have on interest rates and future borrowings and ultimately rate increases?

There are literally dozens of other questions we might ask beginning with a thorough cost accounting of all GESAC expenses and incremental costs which have never been fully released nor itemised. It also makes us query the statement that GESAC will be operating at a cash surplus! What do our readers think?

November 21, 2011

Here Comes The Spin!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments

Council’s Media Release:

Monday 21 November 2011

Glen Eira CEO contract extended

At the meeting of the CEO Contractual Arrangements Special Committee held on 17 November 2011, Council resolved to extend the employment contract of Andrew Newton as its Chief Executive Officer for a further two years until April 2014.

Glen Eira Mayor Cr Margaret Esakoff said Councillors are confident in Mr Newton’s abilities to manage an organisation with $1 billion of assets, a $100 million budget and almost 1000 staff.

“He has demonstrated excellent financial, people and workplace management and is a sector leader in the management of risk,” Cr Esakoff said.

Cr Esakoff said that Councillors had given the matter full and careful consideration and were confident that they and the community had the best person for the role.

“He is among the most experienced and respected CEOs in Local Government and is widely regarded in the sector as one of Victoria’s leading Council CEO’s. He has a demonstrated passion for, and commitment to, the Glen Eira community,” Cr Esakoff said.

Before commencing as Glen Eira City Council CEO in 2000, Mr Newton worked as an executive for the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments under both coalition and Labor Governments. The first minister he served was Malcolm Fraser, and the most recent was Rob Knowles in the mid-90s.

Mr Newton holds a Bachelor of Arts with Honours from Monash University and an MBA from Melbourne University where he came first in his year. He is also a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.

AND THE BAYSIDE MELBOURNE WEEKLY VERSION

Glen Eira CEO reappointed

21 Nov, 2011 04:52 PM

Glen Eira City Council has reappointed chief executive Andrew Newton to his role despite community activists calling for a fresh round of hiring.On November 17 the council’s contractual arrangements special committee resolved to extend Mr Newton’s contract until April 2014. The meeting was held behind closed doors and the outcome was announced on Monday.Glen Eira Spokesman Paul Burke said as the vote was conducted in secret he could not release results of who voted for or against reappointing Mr Newton.Mayor Margaret Esakoff praised Mr Newton as ‘‘the best person for the role’’.

Mr Newton has been in the role since 2000

COMMENTS: If the vote had been unanimous then Burke would have declared the decision as such. It clearly was not unanimous and thus underlines the (ongoing) divisions that are present in this council. We believe that residents have the right to know how each councillor voted and no council resolution should prevent any councillor from declaring his position.

We would also like to take this opportunity to thank all those residents who in good faith signed the petition requesting that councillors advertise the position prior to making their decision. This is just another example in a long list of examples of how the community’s wishes are consistently ignored.

Last but not least, we thought that a comparison with the April 8th 2010 Media Release on the reappointment of Newton might be entertaining and informative. Surely a smidgeon of originality would not have gone astray at this point – after all the ghostwriter does earn at least $230,000 per annum! What this says about the respective mayors of the time we also leave for readers to judge. Compare the following extracts from 2010 to the current Media Release –

“Councillors are confident in Mr Newton’s abilities to manage an organisation with $1 billion of assets, a $100 million budget and almost 1000 staff. He has demonstrated excellent financial, people and workplace management and is a sector leader in the management of risk.”

“He is among the most experienced and respected CEOs in local government and has a demonstrated passion for, and commitment to, the Glen Eira community.”

November 18, 2011

GESAC & More Spin

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments

The agenda items include the long awaited ‘report’ on GESAC. However, this is not a ‘report’ but only an expanded ‘minutes’ of the October 5^th meeting of the Pool Steering Committee. So much for Lipshutz’s promises and the transparency of this council!

The following is made clear:

GESAC will not open in December
Council is facing a ‘liquidated damages’ suit of $1m – at this point in time. Residents should therefore prepare themselves for potentially more legal costs in the attempt to recoup these monies
Even after the builder has finished, there is still a period which includes ‘commissioning’ – ie outfitting. We suggest that this means that the opening will likely be in February at the earliest.

We must also take the following with a huge grain of salt:

“The project is currently under budget, partly due to the levying of liquidated damages (LDs) on the sliding scale since 19 May 2011. Total LDs are likely to exceed $1m by the end of the project. The most likely scenario is that the $41.2m construction contract will be completed for thirty-nine-point-something million”.

Again we invite readers to consider the following:

What is the TOTAL COST of GESAC? All along we’ve been handed the line that the cost is roughly $41m. Now there is the admission that this is only the CONSTRUCTION costs. Add in, interest, outfitting, staff, higher purchase agreements, running costs per year and we’re undoubtedly looking at a venture that is well and truly above $50m.
If these LDs were becoming apparent as early as May, then why has the public continually been fed the spin that everything is on time and under budget?
Several assumptions are made in the above statement: (1) that council will successfully recoup its LD payments; (2) that potential legal costs will be paid by the builder and there won’t be a protracted court battle adding further to overall costs.

Finally, this meagre 3 page document (which is really one page and a half) is short on detail but long on spin. Residents still have no idea when the centre will open; how much it will cost and how much it will be up for in operating costs. And of course, there is no mention of the basketball allocation saga which was ‘promised’ by Lipshutz at last council meeting. All in all, we suggest that this is fast becoming an unmitigated disaster on all fronts – transparency; accountability, and prudent oversight.

November 17, 2011

GESAC: McKinnon Basketball Assoc. Has Its Say

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

Dear MBA members,

By way of background, it is worth pointing out that we (MBA Executive) have always had one major issue with the Council’s decision and that is that throughout their process we were continually told that any submission we put forward had to offer at least $50/court/hour. Given that this was substantially higher than we currently pay, we felt it important to seek the view of our delegates and that view was, unanimously, that the MBA could not afford these rates. Consequently we advised Council that we would not enter a proposal at those levels. It is easy to see, therefore, why we were so dismayed to learn that Council had in fact accepted an offer from a much smaller Association (presumably with far less capacity to pay) at a rate much less than $50/hour. Had Oakleigh offered Council $50+ then we would still be questioning council on the grounds on which the allocation was made particularly around community benefit and hours of operation, since we were told we needed to scale back our proposal and the justifications given for being unsuccessful simply did not add up.

We have been actively lobbying Glen Eira Council to persuade them that the exclusion of McKinnon Basketball Association from GESAC is nonsensical. Council have sought support from Basketball Victoria to facilitate a mediation between Oakleigh and McKinnon in order to determine whether there is the possibility of agreeing a means by which both organisations could use the space. This mediation will take place soon. In the meantime, in an attempt to see if we could shortcut the process, we approached the Warriors direct to see if we could agree a way forward between ourselves. We made it clear that the only workable joint allocation of time would have to see McKinnon occupy the facility on Saturdays. The Warriors subsequently presented a proposal to us which provided us with Saturdays but whereby they would be granted access to two existing McKinnon courts on a Saturday as well as a number of other conditions. Whilst we felt there was a workable way forward with most of the conditions, several were simply unworkable. Consequently we have respectfully declined the offer and will move ahead with the mediation process.

Some of you may have read an article in The Saturday Age last weekend which suggested that members of the McKinnon Executive had in some way promised to reward Councillors with votes at the next election if they grant access to GESAC to McKinnon. The quote used in the paper was taken from an email to Councillors which Council have confirmed was NOT provided to the Warriors under the Freedom of Information Act as the article suggests. It remains a mystery as to how the Warriors came into possession of this email but suffice to say that the quote was accurate but taken out of context. The article also suggests that Jim Magee, among other Councillors, has been in some way retained by McKinnon to help fight our cause. This is simply not true. McKinnon Executive members have had one meeting with Jim Magee, which he instigated, several months ago when he first heard that we had not been successful in our application. Since then there has been appropriate lobbying but nothing more. These suggestions are inflammatory but nothing more; we pride ourselves on our professionalism and have at all times simply sought to promote McKinnon and our programs as the most logical basketball occupant of this great new facility.

Rest assured that we will continue to put forward the case for McKinnon and will engage enthusiastically in the mediation in an effort to achieve the best outcome for McKinnon and basketball in general.

MBA Executive.

Source: http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?client=1-4059-0-0-0

November 17, 2011

Same Old, Same Old……

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

We’ve recently featured posts on the administration’s performance in tabling Requests for Reports. We remind readers that Newton claimed that such requests were “submitted promptly – usually to the immediately following Council Meeting”. The use of Upper Case would suggest that this is an Ordinary Council Meeting and NOT an assembly of councillors. Newton cannot have it both ways. Either the above statement is false and inaccurate, or all councillor requests for reports have been tabled at Council Meetings. History tells us that this is not the case, and even when councillors have specifically stated where and when they wish reports tabled this has not been done. In other words, council resolutions do not appear to have been fulfilled by the administration.

Below is a request for a report taken from the minutes of 26^th July, 2004. Readers will note the clear and unequivocal time frame and the demand that the report be provided in open Council. Needless to say, this report was not forthcoming on the date requested and to the best of our knowledge did not appear in subsequent Ordinary Council Meetings.

We’ve highlighted this specific report given the goings on with GESAC and the lack of information forthcoming to the public and possibly, councillors themselves.

“CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM 2004/05

Crs Grossbard/Marwick

That a report be presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting on 6 September 2004 outlining the stages of progress on all Council major capital works projects budgeted for 2004-2005 financial year

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously”.

We reiterate that no report on “all major capital works projects” was contained in the minutes of 6^th September 2004

We find it unacceptable that accountability and transparency have fallen victim to semantics and linguistic sleight of hand.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates