Locally in Fairfield, a group of young activists organised a protest in the Sydney CBD, under the banner of “the black march movement”  and Fairfield Council provided them with access to the Fairfield showground to use as a meeting point.

A number of local residents were directly affected by the Church killings, through the loss or injury of their family and friends and so I thought it was appropriate for me to move the Notice of Motion below.

I’m pleased to announce the motion, was seconded by Councillor Anwar Khoshaba and passed by the Council unanimously.

URGENT BUSINESS – DEATHS AT A CHURCH IN BAGHDAD, IRAQ

MOTION: Moved by Councillor Zaya Toma

That Council consider this matter as urgent business.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Mayor declared the matter to be one of great urgency.

MOTION: Moved by Councillor Zaya Toma

That Fairfield City Council:

1. Condemns the recent and seemingly coordinated Catholic Church attack in Baghdad, which left 58 people dead and 78 people injured, as well as the ongoing persecution of the Christian minority in Iraq;

2. Notes, members of Fairfield’s large Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac community have been directly affected by this attack by the loss or injury of their family members andfriends; and

3. Call on the Federal Government of Australia to formally demand more protection for the Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac communities from the National Government of Iraq.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

It shows they are connected with our suburbs in ways the dysfunctional ALP are not. In many ways, the ALP are a powerful force in these neighborhoods, and the demographics are changing but they won’t change to reject the ALP, so much as include a plurality. A vote for the Libs is not a rejection of ALP peoples, but an affirmation of the best parts of the neighborhood. In many ways, the leadership of the ALP has rejected the neighborhood. Or maybe the reason why Lalich wasn’t there was because he wasn’t giving a speech.

A showcase of international talent in Cabramatta and Fairfield

The outside of the performance space was decorated with art from many people including Timothy Ly (Good work Tim!!) and Marie Setiawan. There was an in house refreshment area with home cooked (looking professional and tasting better) cupcakes and cookies.

The entertainment began with the Cabramatta Crew, a substantial number of dancers from Cabramatta HS’s junior years. Then Joshua (a student from an international music school) brilliantly performed two numbers from Sondheim. Another two from the international music school did some spanish flamenco which might have been sung in Basque. Jack compered a bit, and didn’t do his moonwalking but showed a few of his humorous clips (after all, Timothy Ly did found Rumble too, and they make such movies).

A short intermission and the show continued with Shadale, a 16 yo who sang two original pieces, quite touching and brilliant. She didn’t stretch her vocals because she was sick, but she has a lovely voice and she has inherited her dad’s fine compositional sense (Dominic being a notable song writer and singer). Another duo performed two piece and gave an encore, but the show stopper was Roxie’s movie about her auntie from Cambodia. The venue can seat comfortably more than 300, and will probably do that next year. It was THAT good.

Will the ALP leadership be accountable for lies told in the election campaign regarding Mr Abbott and Liberal policy? Will there be scrutiny of mainstream media’s involvement with barracking for the ALP? What of the decision of one local paper to not run articles on the candidates of Blaxland during the election campaign? For the seat of Blaxland, can we know what Jason Clare has done in government as parliamentary education secretary, and was he involved with the ongoing BER fiasco and computers in schools program which invades the privacy of every school child that participates?

The ALP were divided from the top down before the campaign, as NSW Premier Kenneally acknowledged. Kenneally seems to be targeting Rudd with her criticism, but it might be many different sources within the ALP. She said the leaks in the first few weaks of the campaign showed the ALP as being divided.

However, I have gone over article dating back to that time, and many of the articles seemed to suggest the leaks meant the Liberal party was divided. That seemed strange to me then, and no one has explained it to me sensibly yet, except to suggest it was a dirty campaign to discredit Mr Abbot.

The obfuscation, confusing voters by claiming the Liberal party was divided when it is clear the ALP were and are, needs to be answered if we are to move forward as a nation .. who will lead the ALP? Will it be Gillard who is incumbent but clearly a failure as a campaigner?

Will it be Rudd who is proclaimed as a campaigner but a failure as a leader? Will it be Jason Clare who is a rabbit as a campaigner, not having campaigned in his seat, and incompetent in his parliamentary performance, having been secretary to some of the worst spending blow outs in Australia’s history .. which probably won’t be mentioned in the textbooks?

Some ALP adverts were factually wrong. Mr Abbott was accused of taking a billion dollars from the health budget, and it is known that that never happened. Mr Abbott was accused by Mr Costello of being an incompetent economic manager, and we know Mr Costello did not endorse those words used out of context. Mr Abbott was accused of wanting to bring back Work Choices, which he opposed in government and had given an undertaking he would not do as a candidate. He even gave a rationale for not implementing Work Choices again.

Jason Clare wasn’t present to campaign in Blaxland, but that was ok for him, as incumbent, all the local population knew was that he was incumbent. At least one local newspaper refused to write an article on the candidates running for his seat, and so diabolically, the election failed to be free and fair in ordinary democratic terms. That paper, as of the time of writing and posting this article had not explained itself, although it has been given several opportunities to do so.

Several media identities twittered appalling abuse at Mr Abbott, and so it is reasonable to question how balanced the coverage has been .. particularly as many polls showed the ALP at unbackable odds to be favorite and the results show that simply wasn’t true.

But Gillard has failed to seize an initiative, and now looks like hesitating over when to call the election, instead of temporizing. She has backflipped, but failed to change policy direction on issues that matter, and so the ALP are set to do worse than when they had Rudd in charge. The new PM, the first female, a red head, foreign born, driven by ideology and compromise, a powerful advocate stands for nothing, but has ambition. There is nothing wrong with ambition, and in fact those with a strong ambition to serve have been spectacular in the past. But those with a powerful ambition to be served have also been notorious failures. The ALP were so surprised by the turn of events that some members, when questioned by the ABC, accused the ABC of scare mongering.

The Telegraph ran a news story of how the CIA had been surprised by the turn of events. It had happened very soon after Gillard had declared it wouldn’t, and gave examples of flying off Earth or playing for football sides. The ALP were on the nose, and had endured a record turn around at a Penrith by-election, of which Federal issues were not said to have played a big deal, but the voters didn’t seem to notice that. Red Kerry on the 7:30 report had exposed Rudd’s glass jaw in an interview, and had worked assiduously hard to claim to have found something wrong with Mr Abbott too, but Rudd’s failure was noticeable to all but those spruiking the ALP in the press. Unreleased poll figures for the ALP, leaked to journalist Andrew Bolt, showed that the ALP faced substantial electoral defeat based on marginals alone.

The media missed the ALP poll collapse. Following a desperate budget, which had unlikely numbers, the usual crowd applauded the ALP as being proud and reforming. The ‘reform’ was actually a tax grab, breaking many election promises of ’07, which had been sprung on the mining industry without prior discussion. At first, the government claimed an impending scare campaign to access a $58 million war chest, but then it became apparent that the adverts were not working for them. Hawker Britton gave qualified support for Rudd in interview. When the mining industry launched an ad campaign, Bolt criticized it for not being well directed and opposing the ALP where it was needed. But those in the back rooms of the ALP were aware that support for them had collapsed.

The ALP had made many promises but gave little detail in ’07, and so they couldn’t match the expectation they had established with an election win. It was like when Keating had won his election .. he had promised a lot, cynically with the view that the Conservatives would be unable to reach the higher standard. But Keating had won and couldn’t achieve anything like what he had promised .. except notable pork barrels. Rudd’s only achievement was to create numerous pork barrels, he failed in all his policy areas. Even Rudd’s parting speech listed only the areas where he had failed. But still the press were not reporting the concerns that those polled were expressing. So that even when public polls were given by the press on the issues, the questions clouded the results in that there was no clear way of favoring a conservative agenda.

Rudd failed on the environment, he had signed the Kyoto agreement, but he did not back it up with anything worthwhile, meanwhile the conservatives offer clear gains for the environment without the insane budget crushing of the ALP. Rudd failed to negotiate the GFC, first by attacking the economy in the lead up to the fall, and then spending insanely high on ill thought projects. The economy was in good order from the previous government, and so the damage Rudd has done has been masked so far, but the cracks are showing, and interest rates are rising regularly as they must. The fake apology to Aborigines damaged brand ALP among indigenous peoples, noting that important work from the previous government had been opposed, and legal advice sought to wrap it up.

Little has been written of Rudd the diplomat’s early failures, like blowing up Australia’s close relationship with Timor in a bungled black op that almost had the President and PM of Timor assassinated, but many have noted Rudd’s failure to engage properly with China, India, Indonesia, USA, NZ, Fiji, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq or Israel, to name a few. Rudd promised a win on IR laws but the union movement were dissatisfied and the reforms had been crushed, and so industry was tanking, with many sandwich shops and small businesses struggling under ridiculous legislation which clearly prevented fair work or fair outcomes for workers. Rudd promised compassion with immigration, but it has become apparent that the Pacific Solution had been the compassionate device as some 170 people are known to have died for Rudd’s bad policy, and over five thousand peoples have paid from $5k to over $20k to come to Australia and face internment for undetermined periods.

It isn’t many people in the scheme of things, but each represents tragedy of failed policy on a substantial scale. Even so, many reasonable people had voted ALP in ’07, and it is a hard thing for people to accept they made a mistake when they have made a choice, and so despite the broken promises and neglect, it was probably hoped by the ALP that people would give them a second term so as to give the government the benefit of a doubt, and an opportunity to prosecute their policy agenda.

But it had become apparent there was no policy agenda, and that the ALP were liable to say anything to explain what was happening, and was unwilling to make the hard decisions needed to govern, favoring making decisions seem hard. In January, when Mr Abbott was asserting his policy direction as a new leader for the conservatives, the ALP looked to be riding high. Rudd had had the ability to force through parliament legislation that would have provided for an ETS, but instead chose to take steps to weaken the position of Mr Turnbull as leader of the Liberal party.

When Mr Turnbull was rolled, Rudd’s political capital was high, even though he had numerous policy failures. Rudd failed to call an early election, but instead had someone write a book under his name. Meanwhile, Australians were dying as a result of Rudd policy failures. Some died in Rudd’s favored war in Afghanistan, others died while doing their business installing insulation into roofs. At any time, the ALP could have admitted mistakes and made policy changes, but they failed to.

When Gillard seized power, she could have made those important decisions. She could have admitted that the pacific solution had been right and that she was wrong to have criticized it the way she had, and she would take the right steps to fix the problem. Instead she chose to rename the policy and call it her own. She needs to buttress the policy with initiatives which Mr Abbott suggests, but she won’t as she needs to maintain a point of difference.

Her policy is yet another failure which she embraces, not as bad as Rudd’s, but still cynical and a failure to address real issues. Similarly with the mining tax, she has renamed it and made it political, so that the industry recognizes the value is too small for them to blow a budget on, but the opposition conservatives must oppose because it is a bad tax. This will go some way to allowing the cheer team claim that industry endorses the ALP plan, but it doesn’t. But still the figures given by the ALP on the tax are wrong, but what they need to run for an election with bogus promises that the conservatives will not match because it is based on unrealistic expectations.

Gillard has hesitated when she needed to show she was in charge. Whenever she calls an election, the ALP will pay a high price for this failure of leadership.

In 2007 Paluzzano was given 48.7% of the first votes, with preferences leading to 59.2% of the vote. Libs got a corresponding 32.6% of first preferences and 40.8% party preferred. Greens got 5.6% of first preferences. At the by election, with 85% of the vote counted, ALP were given 24.5% of the first preferences and got a 33.5% of the two party preferred. Libs achieved 51.5% of the first preference votes and 66.5% of the two party preferred. Greens got 12.1% of the first preferences and gave a minimum of one quarter of their vote to the Liberals in two party preferred terms.

Assuming those who vote first preference Green favor environmental policy framed in radical left terms, then 25 percent of their voters favored the Libs over ALP. It is worth examining the meaning of that. The Libs offer a positive environmental policy. Mr O’Farrell’s party has not released all the detail yet, but we know it is different from the ALP’s in many ways. The ridiculously expensive desalination which favors ALP developers but not the people of NSW is likely to not be the major thrust of a Liberal government, but more sensible policy, with water recycling so as to prevent pollution to the oceans and possibly, cheap dams built to sustain the peoples of NSW into the future. Infrastructure is likely to be developed, reducing the strain on roadways from private vehicles as the people of NSW have grown accustomed to the necessity of cars under the ALP. Expect public transport to be developed under a NSW Lib government, and roads and parking to be improved. Meanwhile, the ALP are for taxing homes, taxing cars, raising fees for public transport but not improving it. ALP stand for expensive water and less of it. Traffic jams and pollution are the results of 15 years of Labor. In the 2007 election, Penrith was promised by Iemma he would turn the state around. He failed to do that and resigned. Then Rees failed and now Keneally is failing. Clearly Penrith greens recognize that the ALP have nothing to offer them. Admittedly at most 75% of Greens supported the ALP, but note that even with all the disasters to befall Penrith, 24% of voters still support the ALP on first preferences too, and over 33% on preferred counts. Despite all the disasters and no relief in sight, 33% are still willing the ALP to win.

It is also important to note that one more Liberal member in parliament will not change much. To achieve an improvement in running NSW, the Libs need to be in government (in coalition with the Nats).

In the lead in to the by election, Keneally claimed to stand by her candidate, but she was rarely seen in Penrith and she wasn’t present with her candidate on the evening of the vote. Also Keneally later said that the result was expected. So why did she lie, if it wasn’t for political reasons? Why did ALP pollsters wear shirts claiming to be Greens and trying to get Green voters to vote for their preference to the ALP? Why the dirty tricks? Keneally, your dishonesty has been noted in this instance, and it will make your job more difficult down the track, not less. Maybe Keneally is expecting a hiding next March, but if that happens, it will be deserved for the party which has failed to adequately govern since assuming office in ’95. But also, if Keneally’s behaviour is any guide, it will be deserved because she personally lied to the NSW people daily about important things.

It should not be forgotten that the morning before the election a NSW paper ran a column claiming that the Libs were running a dirty campaign. This is simply not true, as subsequent reports highlight. The campaign, with O’Farrel showing a leadership role, was clean. Similar headlines have shown at elections in the past and so it becomes increasingly difficult to trust those news sources.

It is the brand of ALP that is suffering at the moment, with Federal issues surely playing out in Penrith too. The failure of Rudd to achieve anything worthwhile, despite his gushing assurances in 2007, is playing hard for sitting ALP members. The other day Rudd spent $2 billion on a positive headline regarding Telstra and his broadband pork barrel. Apparently the pork barrel which is estimated at $43 billion, but which will surely cost more if it is to ever work, will deliver an old technology years down the track to all Australia households at very high cost. Further, the Telstra deal will return Australian households to a monopoly situation, like the seventies, when a broken handset will need to be fixed by a government body.

The federal brand has not just suffered in the instance of mining tax. Although Mining tax was an unnecessary imposition which will limit the industry in future, even before implementation. The mining tax is viewed by the ALP as a necessity in order to have an election pork barrel. In one instance, the collection of the funds will allow the ALP to make promises that a conservative government won’t make because they won’t claim the tax. So the ALP can promise more. Also, the mining tax allows a campaign by the ALP to be waged with federal funds, and some $38.5 million has been placed in the vote ALP war chest.

The tax and the election fund break numerous Rudd promises, but Rudd has gone on the record of saying 90% of his election promises have been kept. It is difficult to know of any promise the Rudd government has kept. Even as Rudd was making his faux apology to Australian Aboriginals, his government had hired lawyers to explore repealing the intervention into the top end. Even as Rudd signed Kyoto, his government was betraying all the environmental plans it had spruiked. Rudd promised to run a government as an economic conservative, and then began spending from a surplus to 30% GDP deficit. Rudd panicked the market to lift interest rates, and then when there was a threat of recession, he had interest rates lowered, but this will mean years of pain as the future governments work to reign in the ridiculous spending and waste. Insulation, BER, Hospital care, Stimulus payments, ETS, Optic Fibre plans, Internet censorship, politicizing the Governor General, suppressing debate and more have come from the PM’s office under Rudd. He is rude to his underlings and undiplomatic with foreign emissaries. Teachers sometimes say that 90% of their class is good while some 10% let the whole class down when really everyone is behaving badly. Maybe this was what Rudd meant about his government? Yet even so, with all this taken into account, Penrith still gave their ALP some 33% of the 2 party preferred vote, and that is worrying.

More locally, we have two ALP incumbents, Jason Clare federally and Joe Tripodi in the state government. Clare is a relatively clean skin, new to parliament in ’07 and a quietly, but well spoken young man. He is tipped to be PM material in the future. However, he has been quietly spoken in this outrageously inept and corrupt government and I don’t think his electorate deserves that kind of shabby treatment. In the issue of migration, Rudd has exploded the number of boats coming to Australia through poor laws. The result has been untold suffering and deaths among the worlds most desperate peoples. This is outrageous and Jason should have spoken out against this. Similarly, the issue of Hamidur Rahman is a party issue, not merely a state issue, and Jason should not be hiding from it, but should be addressing it so that he can show the people of his electorate he is a clean skin and won’t stand for party corruption. On that issue Jason has been silent too. For that reason, come the next federal election, I intend to run against Clare. I may do so as a Liberal, or as an independent conservative with a Liberal policy agenda. I expect, even with all his failings, Clare will be difficult to beat.

Tripodi is another failed ALP government person the electorate doesn’t need. From Wollongong to the Orange Grove affair, from laughing at those dying on roads in country NSW to lying in parliament about meeting with Canley Vale HS Principal about gangs and guns in Canley Vale (circa 2000). Tripodi has failed people in his electorate. In his failure to address the corruption issues surrounding Hamidur Rahman, and adding problems for the whistleblower who highlighted the issue, Tripodi should be booted from office. If I fail against Clare I will have a go against Tripodi.

Piers Akerman has outlined a sequence of events which compellingly suggests corruption among the Rudd administration, but the Australian population will need to go to the polls to oust them, and overcome that rusted on percentage of ALP supporters. Maybe if Rudd tried doing something worthwhile, and supported Australia and Australians he would find it easy to garner Australian support. As it stands, he is fighting to keep the rusted on supporters of the ALP through a vicious campaign of dirty politics. I believe he is doing this because his ambitious underlings are gunning for him, and he needs to protect his backside too. It is too late for Rudd .. and too late for the ALP. They had a golden opportunity to show what they stood for after 2007, and they chose self interest. Rudd will have plenty of times he can reminisce after he leaves politics .. which should be soon. He can think about what would have happened had he run a decent administration instead of the one he has. The ALP government was amoral from the start. The low point is only a reflection of where they are now. They can get lower. They either knife Rudd and show they are divided, or they desperately cling to Rudd and fail to show they are united. Either way, the ALP will get lower before an election is called.

The Rudd Mining plan is half baked, like Health Care, ETS, BER, Insulation and any of many other offers. It failed, but the idea behind it was to divide the nation into envy and jealousy. It will crush industry if it gets implemented, and many tens of thousands will directly lose their jobs and whole towns will fold. Rudd politics is that divisive. But Penrith will rise and fall on ALP failure more local. The previous member took them for granted. Kenneally takes them for granted. They have voted in someone who won’t. The stunning thing is how many rusted on ALP supporters still vote ALP.

The electorate needs a party which will stand for small business and their employees. In many ways, the Liberal party satisfies those needs. However, the Liberal party has a far broader policy agenda. The Greens have a long standing history of patronage with the ALP, a small business (and their employees!) party could work very well with a Liberal party too. Small business has suffered horribly under Rudd. The ALP are not ignorant of the value of business, but actively hostile to it. They have varied reasons for their stance. Some see it as practical to court big business as the rewards are larger and more immediate from that patronage. Others are socialist and feel small business is a threat to their ideals which espouse poverty for all. I am for my home town. I am for migrants. I am for small business, and I respect big business for what it offers the community. I am for small business employees who have aspirations of owning their own business, and having substantial say as to their destiny. I oppose corruption and think it important there is probity and transparency in government process and action. I am for the land of my ancestors and friends. I am for justice, for compassion, for fairness and for the great things of our community. I am for unity. I will, if I achieve office, represent all my constituents, and not just pork barrels and creditors.

The federal issue relates to several failed election promises made by Rudd. Rudd’s term in office has been notable for policy failure and backflips. To date, no election promise has been satisfied. It is acknowledged that an apology was made to Australian Aboriginals, but the promise was that conditions would improve for that community, and in fact they have deteriorated under Rudd, as Rudd has moved to repeal emergency actions taken to protect the community in the top end. Also, politicized pork barrels for the ALP have been put in place which siphon money from those in need. Similar failures take from other trumpeted successes of Rudd and the ALP. Boat people have returned to Australia after a hiatus due to conservative policy. With an estimated one person killed for every boat person to reach Australia, over six thousand have died for ALP’s allegedly compassionate policy. One might prefer it were Australia to take in more refugees by plane, and plan for more infrastructure. Also Rudd signed Kyoto agreement on global warming, only to be greeted with the news that the scientific lobby spruiking global warming terror was not legitimate. Rudd succeeded in getting the Liberal party to dump Mr Turnbull in favor of Mr Abbott, and so the Liberal party has risen to be electable again.

The ALP had a big tax on everything planned with the ETS. It would have allowed them to promise much in the run up to an election which the opposition could not use if they didn’t embrace it. But clearly it was going to have to be dumped because it turned out the population didn’t believe it either. So the ALP used the much vaunted Henry review into taxation to raise another, different tax. The Henry Review did not suggest the tax, but the Rudd government did not seem to mind not using what the review suggested, as less than 3% of the review was actually used in their budget after their six month private review. The tax was justified by a Colorado student’s paper which was never intended to under pin government policy. So a new mining tax was introduced and made retrospective so as to grab some $8 billion dollars and provide a revenue stream for a series of election promises which again the conservatives would not be able to use if they didn’t embrace. This allowed Rudd to shelve the less popular (and increasingly ridiculous looking) ETS. Only Rudd had never discussed this tax with those he was taxing. Apparently the ALP knew that the tax would be resisted, and so they broke another Rudd election promise to fund a campaign promoting the tax before the industry knew it was being taxed. All to get Rudd re elected when he would have been under the normal course of events, but maybe not now. Further, underlying the division within the ALP, none are volunteering for the poison chalice of the leadership position.

In state matters, the NSW budget is seen to be like everything else the NSW Government touches. NSW does not have something worthwhile to point to in terms of ALP government. From Carr’s first term in office when he promised a free m5 and low waiting lists for hospital care, everything has been worse under the ALP. It is in the area of corruption that the NSW ALP seems to excel, with outstanding issues including the outrageous cover up of the death of school boy Hamidur Rahman and the blaming of his parents for the apparent school negligence, through to claims of paedophilia and cover ups going back decades. Kenneally has a strong Catholic background, but it is apparent that she is merely a puppet, and not even her closest colleagues can rely on her, as her former youth justice minister found, prior to resigning. It is remarkable that electricity, which NSW could have sold for upwards of $60 billion in 1995 is now an ongoing liability which desperately needs $8 billion to maintain as the government has moved to ban coal fired power stations. The NSW Budget was applauded as being a conservative one, showing NSW would enter budget surplus this year. But then it turned out the assumption was that NSW spending would have to be restricted to 2.7% when the government has averaged 6.2% for the last four years. Nothing the government has done suggests they are capable of that, and so expect the budget to actually be a deficit of upwards of $2 billion. The financial world does not look as positive as the budget assumed, and so things could look very sick indeed just before the next election when Keneally will be promising more spending. To date the government has been gifted at spending, but no project has been delivered that seems worthwhile, most not delivered at all.

The local issue is priceless. Not long ago, Lalich was voted in on first preferences, despite a substantial swing against him. He was kind of local, being mayor, although maybe not residing in the electorate. He had the ALP contacts, although there is no record of him doing anything worthwhile. He was pushed into promising car parking for Cabramatta, but he plumped for a different plan to that of Dai Le, even though his plan does nothing to improve traffic flow and congestion, it isn’t someone else’s. Because of the lack of transparency of ALP process in government, we only occasionally hear how things are done. The outrageous trade Lalich wanted despite council rejection is an example. Lalich apparently instructed the town planner to explore an option whereby a person who had paid money to the ALP might be able to get the ALP to support a deal where they might benefit $425k and the people of Fairfield would lose a park. That in a local area where kids cannot go to movies if their parents don’t drive them or of they don’t catch public transport.

As the king (paraphrased) asked his advisers, “Won’t some voters rid me of these meddlesome pests?”

In the interest of restoring transparency and integrity back into the Council’s sale process, of publicly owned land.

Could the report please provide Councillor’s with a resolution that will go to an Ordinary Meeting of Council for adoption, which will amend the current policy to:

Restrict the future sale of all publicly owned land to a public auction, with a reserve price as determined by an independent valuation and agreed to by Councillors through the relevant committee.

And if a public auction does not achieve a sale, which meets the Council’s pre-determined and agreed price, a report go back to the relevant committee with alternative options for the sale of the property such as another public auction, a tender or even private negotiations.

Could the report also include a timeline for the progress of the compulsory acquisition of 61 Canley Vale Road, Canley Vale?

Could Councillors please be provided with a copy of the submissions made by Council to the relevant authorities for the compulsory acquisition of both properties?

With consideration to all of the above points, Council at the 23 February 2010 Council Meeting, unanimously agreed to compulsory acquire 61 Canley Vale Road for the construction of the Canley Vale Link Road. On 11 March 2010 however, at the request of the Mayor, the General Manager wrote to the Department of Planning requesting a reconsideration of the decision to not allow the reclassification of Adams Reserve.

In the letter to the Department of Planning from the General Manager, which was requested by the Mayor, it was noted “that under its Property Development fund, Council recently purchased land in McBurney Road nearby to Adam Park that potentially provides a major offset to the open space associated with Adams Park to be utilized for the link road.”

Was it appropriate to talk about the creation of more open space in McBurney Road, Cabramatta to offset any loss of open space in Adams Park, in a letter dated 11 March 2010, considering that this was subject to a decision by Council in May 2010.

And why were the Outcomes committee members not told that property acquisition effort in Cabramatta was to offset the loss of open space if a ‘land-swap’ agreement was reconsidered by the Minister and his Department?

Mr Mayor, what is your explanation for these actions?