Clean look at dirty market | Dandenong Star Journal

Motion

Author: Cr Sean O’Reilly
Notice of Motion: Addressing Cleanliness and Odour Issues in Springvale Activity Centre

Resolution unanimously approved by Council on 9 December 2024

Preamble

Ongoing complaints have highlighted the growing issue of cleanliness and odour problems in the Springvale Activity Centre, particularly around Springvale Market. This motion aims to address the concerns raised by both residents and traders by developing a structured approach to enhance the precinct’s reputation, thereby improving trade and amenity.

Background

Ongoing cleanliness and odour issues have significantly impacted local businesses, residents, and visitors, leading to financial losses, potential health hazards, and a decline in the area’s overall amenity.

Springvale Market, which is Greater Dandenong’s busiest activity centre, is central to this issue. Both residents and traders have expressed concerns about the persistent odour and cleanliness problems.

By preparing this report, the Council demonstrates its commitment to resolving these problems through a structured and informed approach, ensuring the well-being of the community and the sustainability of local businesses.

Motion

That officers prepare a comprehensive report within 4 months detailing the costs and strategies necessary to enhance cleanliness and assist odour mitigation within the Springvale Activity Centre, encompassing Springvale Market.

This report should include, but not be limited to:

Investigation of Sources

The report should identify the primary contributors to cleanliness and odour problems, including improper waste disposal practices by local businesses and any infrastructure deficiencies.

Enforcement Measures

It should evaluate current enforcement efforts and provide recommendations for enhancing compliance with waste disposal regulations and public health standards.

Infrastructure Improvements

The report should assess existing drainage and waste management systems, proposing upgrades or maintenance plans to prevent future occurrences.

Council Cleaning Activities

An analysis of the current frequency and effectiveness of Council’s cleaning activities in the area is required, with recommendations for recalibration to better address cleanliness concerns. The report should also include a comparison of the resources allocated to the Springvale Activity Centre with those allocated to the Dandenong Market, identifying any disparities and ensuring a comparable distribution of cleaning services.

Community Engagement

The report should outline the engagement of key stakeholders such as local traders, business associations, and residents to ensure comprehensive participation and feedback.

Measurement

Metrics should include periodic cleanliness audits, surveys of community satisfaction, and analysis of reported incidents. Compliance with waste disposal standards and the effectiveness of trader engagement efforts should also be tracked. The metric scores may be publicly reported on the council’s website.

Cost Analysis

A detailed breakdown of the financial implications associated with the proposed strategies should be included, along with potential funding sources or budget allocations. The report should also feature a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate the potential savings or benefits from mitigating these issues.

Wards where a candidate did not achieve 50% of primary votes

Summary Table of Progressive Results by Ward

Ward Name	Total Enrolment	Formal Votes	Informal Votes	Total Votes Polled	Voting Percentage of Enrolled	Informal Vote Percentage
Keysborough Ward	8864	7269	225	7494	84.54%	3.00%
Springvale Central	8366	6970	170	7140	85.35%	2.38%
Springvale North	7831	6401	149	6550	83.64%	2.27%
Springvale South	8512	7092	260	7352	86.37%	3.54%
Cleeland	8102	5842	259	6106	75.38%	4.24%
Keysborough South	9184	7793	181	7974	86.82%	2.27%

By Ward

Keysborough Ward

Candidate	Vote Total	Vote Percentage
YIM, Melinda	3058	42.07%
PINCHEIRA, Reinaldo	178	2.45%
BROWN, Peter	2104	28.94%
IN, Hemara	215	2.96%
GOV, Tevyn	328	4.51%
DANG, Daniel	792	10.90%
AKKURT, Sinan	594	8.17%

Springvale Central Ward

Candidate	Vote Total	Vote Percentage
BUNLAY, Meng	1636	23.47%
TRUONG, Hor	612	8.78%
DALTON, Brian	987	14.16%
LE, Phuong	1669	23.95%
LE, Minh	1628	23.36%
STEBBINGS, Sean	438	6.28%

Keysborough South Ward

Candidate	Vote Total	Vote Percentage
MUZUR, Ajdin	1274	16.35%
BRYANT, Alexandra	1340	17.19%
DO, Isabella	3703	47.52%
GONSALVEZ, Geraldine	679	8.71%
JANKOVIC, Sasha	797	10.23%

Springvale North Ward

Candidate	Vote Total	Vote Percentage
DINH, Huong	1234	19.28%
HOLL, Angela	2262	35.34%
O’REILLY, Sean	2905	45.38%

Springvale South Ward

Candidate	Vote Total	Vote Percentage
HEM, Malab	712	10.04%
YIM, Thayhorn	1364	19.23%
TRUONG, Loi	2429	34.25%
TRAN, Andy	1206	17.01%
SOK, Lin	641	9.04%
THAI, Yen	740	10.43%

Cleeland Ward

Candidate	Vote Total	Vote Percentage
GARAD, Rhonda	2025	34.63%
HAYDAR BIG, Zahra	1356	23.19%
LONG, Angela	1804	30.85%
HEMAVATHARA, Pradeep	662	11.32%

By Ward

Dandenong Ward

Candidate	Vote Percentage	Vote Total
MEMETI, Jim	62.78%	3466
RUZAI, Rahima	37.22%	2055

• Total Enrolment: 7905
• Total Votes Polled: 5978 (75.66% of enrolled voters)
• Informal Votes: 457 (7.64%)

Dandenong North Ward

Candidate	Vote Percentage	Vote Total
FORMOSO, Daniel	13.39%	985
TANNOUS, Rhonda	26.15%	1924
TOMIC, Branka	4.02%	296
MILKOVIC, Bob	52.03%	3828
IERONE, Rosana	4.42%	325

• Total Enrolment: 9019
• Total Votes Polled: 7556 (83.78% of enrolled voters)
• Informal Votes: 198 (2.62%)

Noble Park North Ward

Candidate	Vote Percentage	Vote Total
AGRAVANTE, Love	29.81%	2082
RATHNAYAKE, Karl	6.90%	482
FORMOSO, Lana	55.45%	3873
BILLINGS, Will	7.85%	548

• Total Enrolment: 8660
• Total Votes Polled: 7170 (82.79% of enrolled voters)
• Informal Votes: 185 (2.58%)

Yarraman Ward

Candidate	Vote Percentage	Vote Total
COOK, Ian	41.34%	2600
DANH, Phillip	58.66%	3690

• Total Enrolment: 8300
• Total Votes Polled: 6604 (79.57% of enrolled voters)
• Informal Votes: 314 (4.75%)

Ward comparison

Summary Table of Provisional Results by Ward

Ward Name	Total Enrolment	Formal Votes	Informal Votes	Total Votes Polled	Voting Percentage of Enrolled	Informal Vote Percentage
Dandenong North Ward	9019	7358	198	7556	83.78%	2.62%
Noble Park North Ward	8660	6985	185	7170	82.79%	2.58%
Dandenong Ward	7905	5521	457	5978	75.66%	7.64%
Yarraman Ward	8300	6290	314	6604	79.57%	4.75%

Group A

Group A is all votes received by the VEC up to 6pm Friday 25th October.

Group A were all counted by Friday 1 November.

Group B

Group B is all votes received by the VEC after 6pm Friday 25th October.

Group B votes will be counted on Wednesday 6 November .

Ward	Time	Votes
Cleeland	9:00 am	975
Keysborough	9:00 am	962
Noble Park North	9:00 am	920
Dandenong	10:45 am	1027
Springvale Central	10:45 am	844
Keysborough South	11:00 am	1392
Springvale North	12:00 pm	775
Dandenong North	1:00 pm	1088
Yarraman	1:00 pm	968
Springvale South	1:40 pm	904

Ward results, alphabetical by ward name

Cleeland Ward

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Rhonda Garad	1,756	35.6%
Zahra Haydar Big	1,059	21.5%
Angela Long	1,575	31.9%
Pradeep Hewavitharana	542	11.0%
Informal Votes	213	4.1%
Total	5,145

Dandenong North Ward

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Bob Milkovic	3,385	53.6%
Daniel Formoso	792	12.5%
Rhonda Tannous	1,618	25.6%
Rosana Ierone	266	4.2%
Branka Tomic	259	4.1%
Informal Votes	161	2.5%
Total	6,481

Dandenong Ward

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Jim Memeti	2,934	63.7%
Rahima Rizai	1,669	36.3%
Informal Votes	363	7.3%
Total	4,966

Keysborough South Ward

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Isabella Do	3,135	48.6%
Alexandra Bryant	1,118	17.3%
Ajdin Muzur	1,021	15.8%
Sasha Jankovic	648	10.0%
Geraldine Gonsalvez	533	8.3%
Informal Votes	138	2.1%
Total	6,593

Keysborough Ward

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Melinda Yim	2,673	42.0%
Peter Brown	1,878	29.5%
Daniel Dang	696	10.9%
Sinan Akkurt	490	7.7%
Tevyn Gov	278	4.4%
Hemara In	188	3.0%
Reinaldo Ivan Pincheira	154	2.4%
Informal Votes	185	2.8%
Total	6,542

Noble Park North Ward

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Lana Formoso	3,450	56.4%
Will Billings	1,803	29.5%
Love Agravante	459	7.5%
Karl Rathnayake	401	6.6%
Informal Votes	148	2.4%
Total	6,261

Springvale Central Ward

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Meng Bunlay	1,448	23.5%
Alice Phuong Le	1,486	24.1%
Minh Le	1,467	23.8%
Brian Dalton	867	14.0%
Hor Truong	536	8.7%
Sean Stebbings	368	6.0%
Informal Votes	130	2.1%
Total	6,302

Informal Votes: 130

Total Votes: 6302

Springvale North Ward

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Sean O’Reilly	2,644	46.7%
Angela Holl	1,948	34.4%
Huong Dinh	1,064	18.8%
Informal Votes	129	2.2%
Total	5,785

Springvale South Ward

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Loi Truong	2,181	34.9%
Thayhorn Yim	1,205	19.3%
Andy Tran	1,062	17.0%
Yen Thai	636	10.2%
Malab Hem	596	9.5%
Lin Sok	561	9.0%
Informal Votes	216	3.3%
Total	6,457

Yarraman Ward

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Phillip Danh	3,125	58.0%
Ian Cook	2,261	42.0%
Informal Votes	257	4.6%
Total	5,643

The debate over single-member wards versus multi-member wards in Victoria, Australia, involves various arguments from different stakeholders. Here is a summary of the key points:

Arguments For Single-Member Wards:

1. Direct Representation: Proponents argue that single-member wards provide more direct representation, as each councillor is accountable to a specific area and its residents24.
2. Local Focus: Single-member wards are seen as promoting a local focus, with councillors being more aware of local issues and more accessible to residents34.
3. Simplified Accountability: It is argued that single-member wards make councillors more accountable to their local communities, as they are elected by and serve a specific ward24.

Arguments Against Single-Member Wards:

The debate over single-member wards versus multi-member wards in Victoria, Australia, involves various arguments from different stakeholders. Here is a summary of the key points:

Arguments For Single-Member Wards:

1. Direct Representation: Proponents argue that single-member wards provide more direct representation, as each councillor is accountable to a specific area and its residents.
2. Local Focus: Single-member wards are seen as promoting a local focus, with councillors being more aware of local issues and more accessible to residents.
3. Simplified Accountability: It is argued that single-member wards make councillors more accountable to their local communities, as they are elected by and serve a specific ward.

Arguments Against Single-Member Wards:

1. Limited Representation: Critics argue that single-member wards can lead to limited representation, as they may favor major parties and reduce diversity in council representation.
2. Parochial Interests: Single-member wards can lead to councillors being preoccupied with parochial interests rather than considering the municipality as a whole.
3. Vulnerability to Demographic Shifts: Single-member wards are more susceptible to boundary changes due to demographic shifts, which can lead to frequent adjustments and instability.

Arguments For Multi-Member Wards:

1. Broader Representation: Multi-member wards are seen as providing a broader representation of communities, as they can accommodate diverse interests and groups within a larger area.
2. Shared Responsibilities: Multi-member wards allow councillors to share workloads and responsibilities, potentially leading to more effective governance.
3. Stability: Multi-member wards tend to be less affected by demographic shifts and thus require fewer boundary adjustments, providing more stability.

Arguments Against Multi-Member Wards:

1. Complexity: Critics argue that multi-member wards can lead to complexity in governance, as councillors may form groups based on ward affiliations, potentially leading to divisions within the council.
2. Less Local Focus: Multi-member wards may lead to councillors being less focused on very local issues, as they serve a larger area.
3. Potential for Dummy Candidates: Multi-member wards can make it easier for dummy candidates to be elected, particularly if they are part of a voting ticket.

Overall, the debate highlights the trade-offs between direct representation and broader community representation, as well as the potential for both stability and complexity in governance structures.

Arguments For Multi-Member Wards:

1. Broader Representation: Multi-member wards are seen as providing a broader representation of communities, as they can accommodate diverse interests and groups within a larger area34.
2. Shared Responsibilities: Multi-member wards allow councillors to share workloads and responsibilities, potentially leading to more effective governance23.
3. Stability: Multi-member wards tend to be less affected by demographic shifts and thus require fewer boundary adjustments, providing more stability34.

Arguments Against Multi-Member Wards:

1. Complexity: Critics argue that multi-member wards can lead to complexity in governance, as councillors may form groups based on ward affiliations, potentially leading to divisions within the council3.
2. Less Local Focus: Multi-member wards may lead to councillors being less focused on very local issues, as they serve a larger area3.
3. Potential for Dummy Candidates: Multi-member wards can make it easier for dummy candidates to be elected, particularly if they are part of a voting ticket35.

As a committed advocate for the most vulnerable members of our community, I want to reassure all residents that my past decisions and current platform strongly support the continuation of the City of Greater Dandenong’s vital Aged and Disability Care Service program. There is no plan to change the council’s delivery of these essential services. Any future decision on the continuation or modification of these services will be made by a new council, of which I am a candidate.

No candidate for council can guarantee that any service will be provided indefinitely, as all services of council are subject to periodic review. Councillors are required to consider all new information and evidence up to the point of making any decision.

Further, while candidates may make pledges during their campaigns, once elected, councillors must vote on proposals with an open mind, considering the most current evidence available. Promising to vote a particular way without regard to new information or evidence could be seen as contravening the Local Government Act 2020, which mandates that councillors make informed and balanced decisions in the best interests of the community.

I understand the critical importance of aged care services to our community, and if re-elected, I will work diligently with my fellow councillors and relevant stakeholders to ensure that any future decisions are made with the best interests of our residents at heart.

Rather than seeking election promises from councillors who are running for re-election, I suggest that electors consider a councillor’s past decision-making history as an indication of how they may approach future resolutions if re-elected.

Motion passed at council meeting – 25 March 2024

Further reading:
https://dandenong.starcommunity.com.au/news/2024-04-02/reprieve-for-home-care-services/

https://www.greaterdandenong.vic.gov.au/contact-us/news-and-media/council-affirms-its-commitment-continuing-provision-disability-and-aged

https://www.lgi.vic.gov.au/summer-2022-23-local-government-integrity-matters/councillors-must-have-open-mind

By Jenny Ferguson

We received a donation of some newspaper clippings a few years ago, saved by Dave Mickle Snr between 1963 and 1965. Dave was our first president and our first life member. These clippings from the Dandenong Journal provided us an insight into the establishment of the Society, its collection, and the focus and interests of Dave himself.

How did it all start? On 3 April 1963, Mrs Susan Perham wrote a letter to the Editor expressing her disappointment that the old Half-way House Hotel couldn’t be saved and used as a museum and memorial to the pioneers. She believed it was important to do something to uncover some of Dandenong’s history before it was too late. Local resident Dave Mickle responded a week later, keen to generate some interest. He was a member of the Royal Historical Society of Victoria, already passionate about preserving our local history. Susan Perham then offered her home to anyone interested in forming a local history society in Dandenong. Finally, a public meeting was held in the Town Hall on Wednesday 26 June to launch the Historical Society. The first meeting of the newly formed Historical Society was held on Thursday 4 July 1963. It will be no surprise to any of you that Dave Mickle was elected as the first president of the Dandenong Historical Society, and Susan Perham its secretary. The members were keen to get started!

In a newspaper clipping from the Journal dated 7 August 1963, thirteen enthusiastic members were quick to determine the basic facts about Dandenong. In a 1918 railway definition of Dandenong, it was 60 feet above sea level and 18 and a half miles from Melbourne. Its name was derived from the Aboriginal word for the creek which flowed from the Dandenongs, i.e., Danyenong or Tangenong.

The next clipping was dated 13 November 1963. The article “Interest Grows in Dandenong Society” was prompted by their October meeting. There was concern about poor cemetery records. Mrs Trebilco had undertaken to transcribe early deaths from the Dandenong Cemetery records but found her task almost impossible. Nothing was properly recorded prior to 1876. Dave Mickle stated that this was not the case with the Cranbourne cemetery records!

A subcommittee had inspected the Gas Company premises in Hutton Street as a potential headquarters for the Society, but they proved to be impractical.

Warren Titcher and Len Bolch stressed the importance of preserving present-day records for future generations. “In another 100 years, present-day happenings will be history too.”

At the November 1963 meeting, a letter was read out during correspondence from Mrs Daisy Piper, the daughter of the headmaster of Dandenong State School 1403. The headmaster was Mr Alfred Hemmings. Daisy Piper had in her possession an article from the Dandenong Advertiser dated May 27, 1874, concerning her father, and she also had some family information. President Dave promised to pick up the early papers and photographs.

He hoped other early residents would follow suit and donate similar items to the historical society.

By February 1964, Dave had visited the Pipers in Dromana. Daisy Piper believed that when Alfred Hemmings married her mother, Miss Frances Chandler, it was the first wedding in the Church of England in Dandenong.

Mr and Mrs Perham visited a Mrs Jeffreys in Caulfield. She had been told that Mrs Jeffreys’ grandfather, Mr McKee, was the first appointed policeman in Dandenong. Three members took a trip to the Police Paddocks to find out more about its past.

Dr W A Gunson, a well-known historian and Lang Lang resident, was the guest speaker for the February 1964 meeting. Dr Gunson emphasised the value of preserving local history and uncovering old documents which authenticated it. Often, people had in their possession photos, diaries, and personal letters considered only of personal interest and did not realise their value as history. Warren Titcher, inspired by the interesting comparison of the businesses along Dandenong’s main street (The Golden Mile) in 1870 and 1932, in GFR’s Reminiscences of early Dandenong, was keen to photograph the businesses in 1964, creating an elongated streetscape. (Warren’s photographs of The Golden Mile can be viewed in the corridor on the first floor at 39 Clow Street, on the way to the DDHS Rooms. Warren repeated these photographs in 1972, and again in 1991. Another member and keen photographer, Ted Doran captured The Golden Mile in 2013.)

At its May 1964 meeting, Dave Mickle told the members that Cranbourne Shire had tried to annex Dandenong. However, the Chief Secretary rejected the annexation bid. The Cranbourne Shire had better luck in their bid to expand when they secured Yallock from Buln Buln Shire!

Members of the public were invited to attend the Dandenong Historical Society meeting at the Dandenong Town Hall on February 17, 1965. The drawcard was a historical album which Gordon Hill of Beaver Photographics was generously preparing for the society. Mr Hill was hopeful that attendees would be able to identify and date the photographs.

A Dandenong Journal article dated 18 November 1965 titled “Where are these Relics” concerned the old stone bridge over the Dandenong Creek on the highway, built in 1865/66. At the October meeting of the historical society, the members discussed a paragraph published 20 years earlier. When the centre pin of the stone bridge had been removed, a bottle was found, containing a number of papers: Copies of The Argus, The Australasian, Gippsland Times, The Herald and The Age. All were dated December 19, 1866. There was also a penny and a threepenny piece dated 1863. Dave Mickle wondered where those relics were today.

By November 1965, the Society had already designed their emblem, set to appear on correspondence. It was designed by Constable Peter Anderson of Doveton Police, who spent hours researching the uniform of the period and the style of artwork from the previous century. The emblem depicted a typical scene of the old police camp on Stud Road in 1839, established by Captain William Lonsdale in October 1837. At that time it was called the Native Police Corps.

These newspaper clippings have provided us with a glimpse of how quickly the Dandenong Historical Society took off, from one local resident’s letter to the Editor, and it’s still going strong sixty years later.

And the rest, they say, is history.