Table of Contents
Special Coverage
As the 2020-2024 council term draws to a close, we believe it’s a fitting time to reflect on the major issues that have impacted Manningham residents over the past four years. Below, we’ve summarised the public questions and petitions presented at council meetings, highlighting the concerns of the community. Throughout this term, the council was largely unified in its decision-making, though there were occasions when councillors held differing views, particularly on funding matters. Some of these instances, with councillors’ voting records on key issues, are detailed on pages 6 and 7.
Manningham Life reached out to all current councillors for their reflections on their time in office, and we were able to speak with all but two. Additionally, we looked sports funding over the past four years, and wondered whether community sports was equitably funded in Manningham.
This special four-page pull-out was made possible by a micro-grant from the Local & Independent News Association (LINA). To our knowledge, this is the first time such information has been compiled and shared with Manningham residents and voters ahead of the council election. We hope our readers find it informative and valuable. I’d like to extend my gratitude to our small, dedicated team at Manningham Life for their outstanding work and commitment to our community.
A Summary of Public Questions & Petitions
During the council term 2020 - 2024, these were the main issues that concerned Manningham residents. They exercised their right to ask questions and to petition at council meetings.
Public Questions
Community buses
Ms H Jurcevic OAM raised this issue on six occasions. At the April 2021 meeting, she questioned why “we are told that there is ‘no money’ to purchase community buses which would assist in connecting isolated and lonely community members to Council’s community event initiatives.”
The Council responded that they would review options regarding transport (April and July 2021) and were already providing transport for seniors with mobility and social connectedness issues, with bus hire available. Later, in February 2022, the Council rolled out a trial of supported transport services but later, in July 2023, outsourced it to EV Community Transport.
Arundel Rd
Manningham Council received eight questions about the safety of the Arundel Road closure and petitions throughout 2021.
• For closure: 33 signatures in May
• Against closure: 49 signatures in July and 80 in September
At the September meeting, Ms Rachelle Quattrocchi defended that a “road closure is the most cost-effective solution to manage conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular traffic on Arundel Road”, but a decision was deferred. In November, councillors unanimously approved a partial road closure of Arundel Road west of the Knees Road intersection in Park Orchards.
Macedon Square
The issue that received the most questions was the proposed upgrade to Macedon Square, which was raised in Council sixteen times.
Common concerns were
• The loss of car spaces, which Council believed was not “detrimental” (Feb 2021).
• The safety of the road and footpath, which the Council defended, complied with State footpath requirements (April 2021)
• The narrowing of the road, which Council encouraged the community to discuss their concerns further (June 2022)
• Requests to see minor amenities made public, which Council promised would be mentioned to traders and the community when work was undertaken (May 2023)
The Council suddenly decided to terminate the proposed upgrade at the April 2023 meeting. ML covered this issue and decision in detail in Issue 12, July/August 2023. Instead, the Council will undertake minor safety and amenity works at Macedon Square.
Petitions
Solidarity for Palestine
The issue garnering the most signatures was the petition to the Council to show solidarity with Palestine—a total of 1386. It was presented at the February 2024 meeting. Cr Lightbody proposed that the Council support the Manningham Palestinian community by sending a letter to the Australian government. The motion was considered “divisive” and did not pass.
At the following council meeting in March, community members publicly questioned the Council’s failure to support the local Palestinian community while preaching support for its multicultural communities.
