Oh I see. They are going to formalise the thwarting of freedom of speech and scrutiny for their own political interests? It is obvious which way that vote will go with the ALP dominated council and the alleged 'independents'. So the crack down continues - but now it's official. The whole thing is absolutely scandalous.

the disruptions have been largely of the making of the Liberals and their supporters to attack the ALP, and the Mayor has been giving them plenty of ammunition. The new process will be agreed along Party lines, and will seek to stop anyone with political leanings or affiliations having a say – and once again we’ll find the Liberals and their friends calling foul. The fact is that many other Councils don’t allow residents to speak at all without prior notice (often in writing) – including many Liberal-controlled Councils . Once and for all, someone needs to set down rules of conduct that ensure the dignity of Council proceedings – not the disruptive opportunism of the local Conservatives or the ham-fisted responses of the ALP.

My parents fled from the former Yugoslavia (now Serbia) which was run by a communist dictatorship where their rights of freedom were restricted and hence the reason for their migration to Australia. I am surprised to read that as a resident of Fairfield, I will not have the right to ask genuine questions in the interests of our democratic society at Council meetings. This policy imitated by Council is no different to the communist system of government where our simple human rights as residents are deprived. What is scary is as residents we voted these persons to guide us through local issues and this move is clearly against the objectives of good governance.

Dear Mr Cashman, Once again you are displaying some ignorance on a local issue. To begin with, the Council does not get many people utilising the public forum. At any rate, this is a way of adding more bureaucracy to which both Greens and the ALP are accustomed to. The fact remains, this council does not want to be under public scrutiny and cannot answer the hard questions. It is quite disturbing that you call public participation 'disruptive opportunism'. The only opportunism I see here is your support for Mr Lalich's dictatorial behaviour. It is a shame to see that you are the only person writing in his defence, let alone from another political party. Why haven't any of his other Red Lalich Comrades come out in his defence. Is this because they don't share his ultra left Socialist ideals? Perhaps the Greens should be less critical of others and put forward their own policies rather than trying to hijack others.

Joseph, you're well aware that we're the only local party that actually DOES put forward policies. For someone who is happy to dish it out, you're remarkably thin-skinned when people disagree with you - and one has to love the references to "Reds" and "Socialists". This is the 21st Century, Joseph - old Joe Stalin isn't going to steal your kids anymore. I'm not defending the Mayor at all - if you read my posts without blinkers you'll see that I have attacked his response at Council, and that he and I have gone head-to-head on many occasions. The difference is I don't just keep attacking for the sake of it. If you're going to attack the process of "free speech" at Council, have a look at how many Councils controlled by your Liberal mates don't allow speaking from the floor at all. Get Charlie Lynn to have a whinge about them in Parliament.

What has this society come to? We're not allowed to speak? Is this website the only source where we can open up and speak the truthe comfortably. Im a strong liberal as well as a highly concerned resident of this community, i believe from a residents perspective that this ammendment is lalich's first move of communising this society. People of fairfield kiss democracy good bye as Nickola's prime objective is to make this society a classless society. This issue should be raised to a much higher form of government as our mayor deals with corrupt councillors, worships the dollar, does not care about this community and only in the game for his political status. If we sit down and let the labour government proceed with what they have planned for our future, fairfield city will never be the beautiful city that we want it to be. Nick think twice mate, the world does not rotate around you.

What has this society come to? We're not allowed to speak? Is this website the only source where we can open up and speak the truth comfortably. Im a strong liberal as well as a highly concerned resident of this community, i believe from a residents perspective that this ammendment is lalich's first move of communising this society. People of fairfield kiss democracy good bye as Nickola's prime objective is to make this society a classless society. This issue should be raised to a much higher form of government as our mayor deals with corrupt councillors, worships the dollar, does not care about this community and only in the game for his political status. If we sit down and let the labor government proceed with what they have planned for our future, fairfield city will never be the beautiful city that we want it to be.

Bill Labor says they are reforming the public forum policy because of the gathering caused by the Assyrian memorial plaque supporters. Labor did not support that idea until the gathering turned against Labor. Then Labor said they supported the plaque from day one. In any case I fail to see how these reforms could have solved that disruption, which occurred only because the deputy mayor spoke in Assyrian and said one thing in the Assyrian language and then started to speak English and said something completely different. The people felt betrayed and not just that they felt they were being treated like idiots. These reforms are nothing about preventing disruptions - as you put it and everything about screening questions to prevent being asked the hard questions in a public forum. Like Momcilo said, its reminiscent of a bygone soviet regime. To Momcilo and other readers I say have no doubt that these reforms are not supported by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is with you and we support Freedom. We will not let these policies happen quietly and we will not let people forget these policies come election day in 2012. Nick Lalich to you and Labor I say have no doubt - we will remain vigilant - the Liberals are hungry to lead Fairfield - we have the ideas, we have the desire and we will earn the peoples support. Zaya

Any question asked of an elected politician, in a political chamber is going to be political. Unless it is some matter of trivia such as the mayor's football tips. Just because a question may be political, does not make in any less valid or important to be asked, or answered ? No. We need transperancy and scrutiny. The people of the area are begining to find their voice, and the mayor and his cronies wish to silence this voice. The area has a high proportion of people from a non English speaking backround. People may not necessarily have the language skills, or confidence to front up to such a forum and ask their question. Should they be discriminated against because of language, or other matters that may prevent them from standing and asking their question themselves ? No. Therefore it is quite reasonable that a community representative or advocate may stand on their behalf and ask their question. If these representatives happen to have a political position, does it make their question invalid or 'disruptive' ? No, it doesn't. We like to imagine that we live in a democracy where our leaders are open to the concepts of freedom of speech, transparency and scrutiny. In Australia we also like to think that we believe in a 'fair go'. Generations of Australian service personnel have fought and died for our freedoms, and the chance to live in democratic society. Giving the mayor even more autocracy to legitimise his deplorable behaviour is not in the spirit of freedom or speech or the concept of a fair go.