Never try to set the record straight at Clarence Valley Council

Local government is the vital third tier of Australian government and at its best the decisions it makes are based in good governance, as well as responsive to both legislative obligations and the will of the electorate, with its official minutes an accurate recording of fact.

Sadly, Clarence Valley Council does not always fit this profile.

A case in point is the Attachment to Item 14.167/13 in Clarence Valley Council’s Ordinary Meeting Minutes of 19 November 2013.

This attachment contains errors of fact in that it records anonymised statistical information which is incorrect.

If a casual reader of these records wished to look further using just the terms “code of conduct” and “$14,900” (both of which are in said document) a Google search to date will still bring up the name of the councillor in question because local media reported the matter on 16 and 18 October 2013.

As of 12 October 2014 this misleading document remains a part of Clarence Valley Council official digital records available on the Internet, even though Council has had an approved corrected document available to it since 5 June 2014:

Snapshot of excerpt from Item 15.024/14 in  Corporate, Governance and Works Committee Business Paper, 14 October 2014

Cr. Toms is obviously becoming tired of Clarence Valley Council’s historical record continuing to knowingly contain incorrect information, which can be easily linked to her name and which is capable of raising doubts about her conduct in the minds of casual Internet browsers.

The Business Paper for Council’s Corporate, Governance and Works Committee meeting scheduled for 14 October 2014 contains Motion 15.024/14 by Cr. Toms seeking Correction to Department of Premier and Cabinet Division of Local Government Code of Conduct Complaints Report 2012/13 and Public Notification.

The response by Clarence Valley Council management to this motion descended into farce very quickly with this:

When one compares it with another attachment 14.162.13 in the very same November 2013 committee minutes, one can see how risible this argument is:

Snapshot of attachment list recorded for Clarence Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Minutes,19 November 2013 - taken on 12 October 2014

Apparently the historical record can be easily amended when it suits and thus far it hasn’t suited Council’s executive to do so in the case of Attachment 14.167.13.

Is this a threat? One Clarence Valley councillor thought so

This is a snapshot from the ordinary monthly minutes of Clarence Valley Council on 24 June 2014 of a motion which was ruled out of order by the mayor:

And this is the rather extraordinary warning given to nine elected councillors which appears to have caused the motion, a copy of which is also in the same minutes:

This is the original notice of motion which caused the General Manager such angst when it was considered by the Governance & Corporate Committee on 10 June 2014: 

Unfortunately in all the argument about motions, the Committee's recommendations appear to have fallen through a hole in the floor, never to be seen again. 

At the time of writing this post the incorrect data in the attachment in question is still up on the council website at http://clarence.nsw.gov.au/cp_content/resources/14.167-13%281%29.pdf:

Clarence Valley Council's Code of Conduct (March 2013) can be found here.

Clarence Valley Council trialling live streaming of meetings

Clarence Valley Council has made a positive move going some way towards addressing transparency, access and equity issues by committing itself to a 12 month trial, live streaming its committee and ordinary monthly meetings via http://mixlr.com/clarence-valley-council.

Council is intending to use the free basic version of the Mixlr live audio platform. There is an iPhone app available for Apple and Android devices.

Live streaming will commence in May 2014.

In 2011 57.8% of Clarence Valley households had a broadband Internet connection according to profile.id.com.

Council will be able to see the number of online “guest” listeners at each live streamed meeting, so residents and ratepayers need to patronise this service regularly to ensure it continues.

For the estimated 44.2% of households without broadband connection, the issues remain of access to alternate monthly council meetings held approximately 46 kms apart and the distances some residents have to travel in a 10,441 km² local government to attend these meetings.

Clarence Valley Council rating by the numbers

It may be only the second month of 2014, however the vexed question of council rates is a perennial one and North Coast Voices first reader queries of the year were on this very subject.

Quite frankly it has always been a mystery to me as to how Clarence Valley Council actually decides its rates for specific areas, because whatever decision is announced one is always left with a sneaking suspicion that it has less to do with any rating structure framework and more to do with the political influence exerted by certain individuals and specific interest groups.

This appears to be how the Council’s latest attempt to set its rates is playing out.........

In Clarence Valley Council’s minutes of its ordinary monthly meeting of 10 December 2013 it included this table and advice in Item: 14.179/13 RATING STRATEGY at Page 152:

What this data indicates is that the majority of the areas within the Clarence Valley LGA are below the state average in terms of socio-economic wellness. Junction Hill is on par with the State Average, and 166 basis points (20%) ahead of South Grafton, which is on the lower end of the scale. This information should be considered in terms of addressing the affordability aspect when developing the 2014/15 rating structure.

The table appears to have been prepared using an identical table found at .id the population experts.

Rather interestingly, it appears that Clarence Valley shire councillors are being invited by council staff to approach their decision-making from a disease model, if the term "wellness" is any indicator. Apparently they are meant to ignore the fact that the index score table is based on socio-economic characteristics only.

On 10 December these councillors unanimously voted to; adopt the Rating Structure Framework outlined in this report which is to be used to guide the preparation of Council’s 2014/15 Rate Structure.

However, it is always wise to look closely at SEIFA figures used by local government, as not only do these figures vary between Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) tables based on the same census, there is often a tendency to attempt to group two or more identified suburbs together which can distort the original ABS published relative index scores.

Thus using Clarence Valley Council’s version of data found in ABS Table 3. State Suburb (SSC) Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage 2011, Clarenza’s score of 1044 is submerged into a district score of 956, Junction Hill’s score of 1008 is similarly hidden in a district score of 996, Grafton’s 921 score becomes 917, while South Grafton drops two points from 832 to 830.

Gleanreagh is given a lower index score in Council’s table when merged with Lanitza, which in this paper merger ends up with a higher score than that assigned to it by the ABS. Similarly Ulmarra ends up with a higher score it its district merger. Waterview Heights loses 24 points off its index score in the district merger with Seelands, which fortuitously has its own high score of 1009 effectively concealed.

In the Lower Clarence the main tourism towns of Maclean, Yamba and Iluka have unaltered scores, but semi-rural Lawrence and Woombah have ABS official scores 33 points higher and 45 points lower respectively than the combined district score given in Council’s version of the published table.

Angourie with its high index score of 1012 doesn’t rate an individual mention in Council’s table, neither does Gulmarrad’s 1007 score nor does Brooms Head’s relatively low score of 866.

As in theory higher index scores may be one possible indicator of less relative socio-economic disadvantage in an identified area, one has to wonder why Council appears intent on minimising certain Upper and Lower Clarence index scores which shire councillors might refer to when discussing any future rate rises.

The question I am hearing most often from Yamba ratepayers is; Why it is that the main coastal tourism town will probably feel the full weight of any rate rises, when Yamba has a higher proportion of people in older age groups of 60 years+, less households with higher incomes and a higher percentage of households with weekly incomes of less than $600, when compared with Grafton or the Clarence Valley as a whole?

When similarly in comparison with Grafton it has fewer people sustaining a high income-earning capacity over time, a higher level of unemployment, less social housing and, higher monthly rental and mortgage repayment costs. 

As well as the valley average for people needing assistance with core activities and less immediate/direct access to the full range of health/community/government infrastructure and services situated in Grafton City and environs.

The next local government election in the Clarence Valley may be in three years’ time but ratepayers have long memories.

Those sixteen current rating categories/subcategories need to be addressed based on more than a north vs south viewpoint and a hope that ratepayers ire will subside quickly once the deed is done.

Councillors need to truthfully explain to their electorate why a large number of properties in urban ‘clusters’ with no obvious relative socio-economic disadvantage, beyond that generally experienced by the valley as a whole when it is compared with the rest of NSW, are likely to be classified as more disadvantaged by the time Council gets around to voting on the base rate and any rate rises.

Especially as SEIFA index scores are not necessarily a good tool to use in setting rates in the first place. SEIFA indexes measure people's access to material and social resources, and their ability to participate in society. Index scores used by Council are the cruder measures in the comparison range within these indexes.

It needs to be noted that the Australian Bureau of Statistics states very clearly that these index numbers are an ordinal measure and; For example, an area with a score of 1000 is not twice as advantaged as an area with a score of 500 and Also, the index scores are on an arbitrary scale. The scores do not represent some quantity of advantage or disadvantage and The indexes are primarily designed to compare the relative socio-economic characteristics of areas at a given point in time, not to compare individual areas across time.

All 2033.0.55.001 - Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2011 data can be found here.

All National Regional Profile 2007-2011 are found here.

Australian Local Government Women's Association (ALGWA) hosting forum in Clarence Valley on 8 February 2014

Media Release

Councillor Toms hosts ALGWA Executive meeting &

“Leading Ladies” Forum

In the interest of promoting community awareness and education for women in the Clarence Valley local government area, Cr Karen Toms has successfully secured an executive position on the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Local Government Women’s Association (ALGWA). This is the first time a Clarence Valley Councillor has been elected to the Executive of ALGWA NSW.

ALGWA NSW branch executive will be holding their executive branch meeting in the Clarence Valley on 8th February 2014. This is a unique opportunity to showcase the Clarence Valley to councillors from across the State.

In conjunction with the executive meeting, a Free Community Forum will be held on Friday 7 February 2014 at the Treelands Drive Community Centre at Yamba. The Forum is titled: “Leading Ladies”.

The “Leading Ladies” Forum will examine leadership stumbling blocks women meet in daily activities, at home, socially or in the workplace. The focus of the Forum is to provide practical straight forward solutions for the modern world through practical leadership techniques for women. Become skilled at maintaining your personal values without disrespecting traditional values of others. It is designed for all ages and people from all walks of life, who aspire to become, or already see themselves as leaders or anyone who simply want to improve their confidence or increase their self-awareness. Parents may also find the Forum beneficial to assist daughters with transition into the workplace.

The presenter, Katie Clayton-Vincent, has formal education in Management and Leadership. She will share her experiences of climbing the corporate ladder, and reveal leadership technique adopted when overcoming the difficulties of working as a senior management in male dominated industries. In addition to running a successful agricultural business, Ms Clayton-Vincent conducts mentorship and business coaching work with women in the Clarence Valley.

The President Cr Colleen Fuller and her team look forward to their visit to the Clarence Valley.

DETAILS

Event: ALGWA Leadership Forum – “Leading Ladies”

Date: Friday 7 February 2014

Time: 4.30pm (Registration & refreshments) 5.00pm – 6.30pm Forum

Venue: Treelands Drive Community Centre, Treelands Dr, Yamba

RSVP: RSVP by 31 January 2014

Cr Karen Toms: Ph 0403 195 178 or email: karen.toms@clarence.nsw.gov.au

Medial  contact: Cr Karen Toms

Clarence Valley Council asked to explain its latest legal débâcle

In mid-November 2013 Clarence Valley Council General Manager Scott Greensill contacted The Daily Examiner to complain about a letter to the editor written by one John Catesby.

Heaven knows what he had to say about Mr. Catesby's latest letter (below) published on Page 8 of The Daily Examiner on 17 December 2013.

A letter  which had many Lower Clarence residents laughing into their morning coffees - because try as he might the general manager just can't silence debate on this issue and his attempts to control information to date have only resulted in an unleashing off the Streisand Effect.

Questions remain

The article in DEX (Wed 4.12.13) concerning the adjournment of the NSW Industrial Commission hearing of the unfair dismissal application by council's senior ranger against Clarence Valley Council is alarming.

Having dismissed the ranger more than 12 months ago; having engaged in protracted and no doubt very expensive legal process; and having subjected the ranger to what must have been enormous stress, humiliation, and embarrassment, Council has now decided to enter into "negotiations behind closed doors" rather than expose the findings of the Commission to the public.

As your editorial quite rightly suggests, the man's conduct and personal integrity remain in question. Worse, Council's actions could easily be interpreted as malicious, vindictive or incompetent. This is simply not acceptable. Justice has not been seen to be done.

Has this been an act of magnanimity by Council? Has it been an acknowledgment that perhaps the offence was not deserving of dismissal? Or is this an attempt to hide an incident created by a culture of threats and intimidation that has seriously backfired because one man had the courage to speak out?

There are just too many unanswered questions. Why did Council allow this to drag on for 12 months if this outcome appears now to have been not only possible but highly likely? Where did Council get its advice to dismiss the Ranger in the first instance and on what grounds? Who are the people in Council with the expertise in these areas and just what is this "expertise", because from where I stand it doesn't appear to be all that flash.

What is going on in this Council and, in particular, in Council's Industrial Relations and Legal Department? We ratepayers are entitled to the answers.

John Catesby

Maclean

An end run around transparent local government in the Clarence Valley

Letter to the editor published in The Daily Examiner 7 August 2013:

Glaring omission

What a masterful piece of misdirection on Clarence Valley Council’s part can be found in “Not so ‘sensitve’ after all” [The Daily Examiner, 2August 2013].

Point to the front cover of the “Review of Environmental Factors – Yamba Bypass Section 2”  report and cry; the consultant did it not us – nothing to see here!

Actually, the form Clarence Valley Council was required to submit with its referral documents, and which was co-signed by Council, listed two reports as "Not publicly available".

The “Review of Environmental Factors” (along with a second flora and fauna study) was ordered to be undertaken by unanimous vote of councillors on 26 July 2012  when considering Item 13.079/12 Stage 1 Yamba Urban By-pass Road and Urban Intersections Project and, should properly have been presented to councillors for their information by now.

The relevant motion in part resolved: "The scope of Stage 1 of the Yamba Urban Bypass and Urban Intersections project be: extend existing road from Yamba Road / Shores Drive intersection to Coldstream Street."

Management has now arbitrarily split Stage 1 of this bypass road into Section 1 and Section 2, in what looks suspiciously like an attempt to prohibit an integrated overview of flora and fauna along the length of the yet to be constructed road rather than a legitimate planning requirement.

However this does not remove its obligation to keep all councillors informed, as the motion went to the overarching Item 13.079/12.

Many Yamba residents will remember that the reason parts of this motion were put forward in the first place was the fact that neither councillors nor community has [sic] been aware that the Yamba Bypass was being progressed and in a different manner to earlier plans.

Thankfully, the Federal Environment Minister has been more obliging, so both councillors and Yamba residents can go to http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=6928 and download the referral form and all attachments - with the exception of the flora and fauna study/assessment as it is still missing from the public record.

If one believes Council’s referral form, all this need for sensitivity is supposedly an effort to protect one endangered species from public knowledge – which is laughable given Maclean Council documents openly mentioned its existence on the proposed bypass route, Clarence Valley Council documents helpfully point out what sort of vegetation clusters in Yamba are likely to contain this species and as late as 2006 was mentioning it in print and online media in relation to the bypass route
.

What this secrecy did achieve was to lock both the Yamba and Yaegl communities out of the ten day public comment period in which objections could be made to the Federal Environment Minister in relation to the contents of Council’s referral documents.

JUDITH M. MELVILLE

Yamba

Desmond John Thomas Euen wants a sea port

Readers may have noticed that rumours have resurfaced about the Port of Yamba being targeted as a coal terminal at the end of a west-east rail line linking north-western NSW with the coast.

This plan was first mooted by some of the people involved in unsuccessful lobbying to dam and divert water from the Clarence River catchment system for the benefit of irrigators and mining corporations in the Murray Darling Basin and, at the time was estimated to cost at least $3.5 billion to achieve.

Though the latest manifestation of these rumours owes little to Mal Peters & Co and more to an ‘entrepreneur’ from Booval in Queensland.

According to ASIC documents Desmond John Thomas Euen is the only director, shareholder and company secretary in a $1-1 share company registered in New South Wales on 31 August 2012, Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd, and elsewhere he has variously described himself as the company’s Managing Director and Executive Director.

Mr. Euen also has a website which appears to be locked or parked:

Whois http://whois.domaintools.com/australianinfrastructuredevelopments.com.au

Domain Name:                     australianinfrastructuredevelopments.com.au
Registrar ID:                    WAR
Registrar Name:                  Web Address Registration
Status:                          ok

Registrant:                      LYNX BUSINESS SERVICES PTY LTD
Registrant ID:                   ABN 56146166574
Eligibility Type:                Company

Registrant Contact ID:           R-006499331-SN
Registrant Contact Name:         Des Euen
Registrant Contact Email:        Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs

Tech Contact ID:                 C-001573771-SN
Tech Contact Name:               Des Euen
Tech Contact Email:              Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs

Name Server:                     ns1.designandhost.net
Name Server:                     ns2.designandhost.net

On doing a Google search of the second company which appears to be associated with Desmond Euen, I found this:

As well as this as yet unexplained and possibly unrelated notice.

It appears to be Mr. Euen’s current goal in life to turn a small working port, on which the local fishing and tourism industries also heavily rely, into a generic freight hub at the end of a phantom west-east rail line and, in the process destroy a significant Yaegl cultural and spiritual site, Dirrangun reef.

He rather arrogantly asserted to one journalist that; the local indigenous population would be handsomely compensated and provided with jobs.

Dirrungun reef and the Clarence River below Harwood Bridge fall within two registered native title claims by the Yaegl people of the Clarence Valley.

Desmond Euen has created a power point presentation to support his grandiose plan but has not yet submitted a proposal to the O’Farrell Government.

He appears to be having trouble getting a hearing from relevant federal and state ministers. Indeed, to date the only ‘meeting’ he seems to have achieved has been a very short one with a senior staffer from the NSW Roads and Ports Minister’s office and it resulted in this statement:

“A proposal of this nature is highly unlikely in the current market environment and the government has no plans for the Port of Yamba”

The ever hopeful Mr. Euen has approached at least one local newspaper and, The Daily Examiner reported on 1 August 2013:

In the wake of a recent story on speculation the Port of Yamba was to be converted into a coal freight hub, the managing director of ADI, Desmond J T Euen contacted the paper.

Mr Euen said he was upset rumours were circulating a coal hub was on the agenda and said in fact his organisation had been speaking to the State Government about converting the Port of Yamba into a freight hub.

He said the development would bring billions of dollars worth of investment and thousands of jobs to the area.

Mr Euen also said a funding deal, from the private sector, was in advanced stages.

By 2 August Mr. Euen had reportedly become insistent "I'll tell you this; the Yamba Port is going to be developed in exactly the way I'm saying it will," Mr Euen said. "And it's got nothing to do with coal" and Clarence Valley Mayor Richie Williamson was showing his usual fence sitting skills when it comes to Lower Clarence issues "We would welcome responsible and sustainable development and jobs in the Clarence Valley….And any proposal that reflects that should be given due consideration on its merit."

If Clarence Valley Council management or its executive has given Mr. Euen any form of encouragement they have seriously misjudged the aspirations and priorities of the Yamba community.

Clarence Valley Cr. Karen Toms to move motion next week that Council commence awareness campaign re upcoming national referendum to recognise local government in Australian Constitution

Finally Clarence Valley Council appears to be considering an information campaign which will offset the alarmist nonsense being spread across the local government area by those being fed misinformation via websites such as Vote No To Canberra's Power Grab.

This nonsense reaches its peak in local online comments by the likes yambaman and Klanger.

There is no doubt that this referendum is being strongly supported by local governments across Australia:

Our national campaign involving mayors and councillors across the country is well underway and Commonwealth funding to support the yes campaign has been confirmed.  Councils strongly believe that winning a referendum is in the interests of every local community and we will continue to reinforce this.  Councils need formal recognition as legitimate recipients of direct federal funding because without it, federal programs such as Roads to Recovery are at risk of legal challenge.  That's why we are getting on with the job of ensuring that Australians understand that voting 'yes' at a referendum is the only way to protect direct funding for community infrastructure such as local roads, libraries, child care and sporting fields.

Although the decision regarding the timing of the federal election is one for the Government, local government is confident that the referendum will go ahead.  We are ready and we are confident of a successful referendum in the near future. 

Mayor Felicity-ann LewisALGA President

Hopefully Clarence Valley Council will pass this timely motion at committee and ordinary monthly meeting level and, then act quickly to give residents and ratepayers reliable information concerning the forthcoming referendum.

Committee: Governance & Corporate

Section: Notice of Motion - Cr Toms

Date: 9 July 2013

Item: 15.006/13 Referendum for Constitutional Recognition of Local Government

To the General Manager, Clarence Valley Council

PROPOSED MOTION

1. That council commence an awareness campaign to ensure our community understands the importance of the upcoming referendum to recognise local Government in the Constitution

2. This could include but not be limited to an addition to councils existing advertisements in the local papers, flyers and posters in Libraries and other public places as the General Manager sees fit.

3. Information placed on councils website and in our e-newsletters

4. That Local Government NSW be asked to provide campaign support materials to Councillors to assist with raising awareness in the community prior to the Referendum.

BACKGROUND

The Prime Minister announced 9 May 2013 the Australian Government’s intention to proceed with a referendum to recognise local Government in the Constitution.

The referendum will be held on the same day as the Federal Election this year and will ask the voters to cast a vote on “financial” recognition to enable the Commonwealth to continue to provide direct funding to local services and local communities.

The Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 2013- was released by Minister Albanese on 16 May and formally introduced into Parliament on 29 May. The Bill was the last formal step in the path to a referendum

LGNSW wrote to all NSW Federal Members and NSW Senators to support the legislation that was introduced into Federal Parliament to provide for a Referendum to amend the Constitution to include the ability to directly fund Local Government.

The proposed legislation was supported in the Federal Parliament on Monday 24 June 2013.

Should the referendum be successful Section 96 will be amended to read "...Parliament may grant financial assistance to any state or local government body formed by a law of a State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit."

The words of the proposed amendment were designed specifically to give assurance to State

Governments that, under the proposed change, local government would remain the responsibility of state and territory governments.

Legal advice confirms that the Federal Government will not be able to ask local government to do anything that would contravene a state law, and that states will retain the right to legislate for their councils, including the ability to stop them from accepting federal funding if they have concerns.

ISSUES

Although the Commonwealth Government has provided direct funding to local government for many years, two recent High Court decisions in the space of 3 years have challenged its power to do so.

A 2009 High Court case Pape v Commissioner of Taxation found that the Commonwealth does not have power to directly fund areas such as local government. It can only spend money where it has a specific power under the Constitution. A further case in 2012 Williams v Commonwealth of Australia reaffirmed the Court’s finding in Pape v Commissioner of Taxation that there are significant constitutional limits to the Commonwealth’s ability to spend money.

Both decisions have created legal uncertainty in relation to direct funding from the Commonwealth to local government.

The decisions present a compelling reason to include local government in the Constitution. Without constitutional recognition, direct Commonwealth funding of local government, through programs such as Roads to Recovery, may be technically invalid. Local government needs certainty and security of funding in order to provide the range and level of services expected by the community.

This referendum is about fixing a problem and removing the uncertainty surrounding the funding of vital services and infrastructure for communities.

OPTIONS

1. Support the proposed motion

2. Not support the proposed motion

3. Take some other action

Councillors Karen Toms

Date 27 June 2013

Clarence Valley Council flying high with new airport upgrade funding from the federal government

In July 2012 Clarence Valley Council announced that it would benefit from a NSW O'Farrell Government grant of a 4% interest subsidy on loans under the Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme, which will allow it to borrow the $1.06 million to begin work on the $2.1 million airport upgrade - construction of an additional aircraft parking bay, extra hardstand areas helicopters, strengthening and shape correction of the runway and apron pavements, extension of the passenger terminal building and replacement of the aerodrome back-up electrical power supply.

On 12 June 2013 the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Federal Minister for Regional Development and Local Government Antony Albanese and Federal Labor MP for Page Janelle Saffin announced that the Labor Government will contribute $1 million to the upgrade which includes an extension of the airport terminal, an additional parking bay for passenger aircraft and extra hardstand areas for helicopters. The project will also see the perimeter fence and runway lighting upgraded, as well as the airport's back-up power supply replaced.  

This new federal grant is coming from Round Four of the Regional Development Australia Fund. Full details here.

As the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research (NIEIR) for the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) concluded that "regional communities with regular air services are doing better on a number of clear quantitative measures than those without"  [Clarence Valley Council December 2010] both councillors and valley residents can be pleased with this chance to complete the scheduled upgrade by 28 December 2014.

Of course none of this will really please Rex Regional Express airline, which continues its epic six year-long moan that was enthusiastically supported by much gloomy head shaking on the part of Federal Nationals leader Warren Truss, and Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce when they visited Grafton airport in May 2011.

Clarence Valley North-South Divide throws up yet another letter

Forced local government amalgamation in the Clarence Valley, followed by an [expletive deleted] administration period from which the council is still recovering, fractured any hope of a united population and the current set of shire councillors is doing its best to further entrench and widen that fracture.

Nowhere is that rift more obvious than in the letters-to-the-editor section of local newspapers.

Here is one of the latest published in The Daily Examiner on 4 June 2013:

It would be nice if the people of Grafton, who have such a down on the Lower Clarence would check their facts. Yes, we do have two swimming pools, but my older children learnt to swim in the old quarry pool before the rock pool was built in about 1967/68. We (the people of Yamba) began to work for a heated community pool only to have a newcomer to town who wanted a hydro pool at the Maclean Hospital, so our efforts went to help her, then Maclean pool was enlarged from 25m to 50m, so we helped again.   Then we went flat out to raise funds for our heated pool and much volunteer labour went into that pool. As regards to our developments having proper footpaths and guttering, well I think Maclean Council had much to do with that. It did not cost $1 million dollars to fix our rock pool, not nearly as much as the South Grafton pool. Please think before your next rave. I have a little knowledge of local government as my late husband was a Maclean councillor for eight and a half years. The extra six months was to fight against amalgamation - but we lost.   Marie Rheinberger, Yamba

One more reason that Clarence Valley Council should replace that missing section of the Yamba Road Cycleway sooner rather than later

 

Letter to the Editor, The Daily Examiner 17 May 2013:

 

Money spinner

Earlier this month, a group of cycling friends travelled from Queensland's Sunshine Coast to the Clarence. This was our third visit in less than five years and again Maclean was the base.
The Lower Clarence is a delightful area to cycle and among our wonderful experiences, starting on day one, was the ferry ride from Yamba to lunch at Iluka before returning to Maclean via Ashby and Harwood (pub).
Day two we were on a back road near Tucabia when a car pulled up. Out jumped a local lass amazed to see such a group and proceeded to take our photos. Lunch was at the Ulmarra pub.
Day three we were invited to ride in the Woodford Island fun ride organised by Maclean Rotary. Day four was an early morning sprint out to Brooms Head before our departure.
Everyone was again taken by the beauty of the region and appreciated the consideration given by motorists on roads that were not always cyclist friendly.
Our group of about 30 would have put about $15,000 into the local economy for our stay.
Cycling is a massive growth area driven by baby boomer retirees. With money well spent on improving cycling facilities in the Clarence (eg paths/lanes Maclean to Yamba; sealing road between Ashby, Tullymorgan and Lawrence; and road markings to make motorists aware of cyclists) there would be a huge financial boost to the area.

RON GOOCH

Peregian Beach

 

Yamba versus McDonalds revisited

[Tiley, Dr. Ian (2012) Divided We Fall: An Insider’s Perspective on Local Government Amalgamations]

Click on image to enlarge text

NSW Local Government: Is this the mates' club in action again?

South Grafton has quite rightly been benefiting from a change in attitude by local government and now has a plaza (first mooted in 2006-07) to enhance the Lane Boulevard streetscape.

The Daily Examiner reported on 18 April 2012:
 
Clarence Valley Council deputy general manager Rob Donges said council would be putting together a business case for a cafe there and, should the cost of establishing be realistically recovered, it would be opened to private tender.....
The Plaza was funded by a $250,000 grant under Round 3 of the Australian Government's Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program with council contributing $55,000.

 

A strong rumour has surfaced about which Clarence valley business person might like to run this cafe and, it doesn’t take a genius to work out who local residents think may have the inside running.

 

Clarence Valley Council Ordinary Monthly Meeting ,11 December 2012 ,Item 13.226/12: South Grafton Plaza –Stage 2:

 

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

That following the issue of appropriate amended development consent, Council calls for tenders for the construction of toilet facilities and a café on the South Grafton Plaza.

Having declared an interest Cr Challacombe left the meeting at 9.43pm

COUNCIL RESOLUTION – 13.226/12

(Crs Howe/Hughes)

That

Following the issue of appropriate amended development consent, Council calls for tenders for the construction of toilet facilities and a café on the South Grafton Plaza.

Voting recorded as follows:   For:	Councillors Williamson, McKenna, Howe, Simmons, Kingsley and Hughes
Against:	Councillors Baker and Toms

Cr Challacombe returned to the meeting 10.11pm

Once again, Clarence Valley Council fails to consult the community. This time it's CCTV

 


It would appear that there is no tier of Australian government that is not intent on recording as much as possible about the lives and activities of its constituents.

On this occasion it is Clarence Valley Council, intent on encouraging the installation of CCTV cameras in the predominately small business districts scattered along the length of the river, and being this particular council, once again not asking residents using these streets whether or not they wish to shop, pay their bills or have a coffee under the gaze of one or more 27/7 street spies.

The Daily Examiner 19 December 2012:

An innovative program funded by Clarence Valley Council will provide local businesses with financial support to install CCTV.
The program is focused on addressing crimes, including vandalism, graffiti and break and enter, throughout the Valley.
"While we must keep in mind that our levels of these crimes are relatively low in comparison with other areas, there are some concerning incidents of crime happening locally which the business community and council are rightly concerned about." said the Mayor, Richie Williamson.
"This program will work hand in hand with other council and community strategies that target crime."
The program was developed after a series of consultations with NSW Police and the local business community…

So with Clarence Valley Council intent on encouraging private business to intrude on our everyday lives, is there likely to be any real and lasting benefit from the Big Brother effect?

Apparently not:

Though billions of dollars are being spent world wide on CCTV systems, there is actually little evidence as yet of the success of CCTV to combat or deter crime or its cost effectiveness in doing so..

The evidence that the benefits of CCTV will fade after a period of time are backed up by a number of studies. [Townsville City Council paper 2001]

 

CCTV was found to have no significant impact on total offences, total offences against property (including other theft (excluding unlawful

entry), unlawful entry, other property damage, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and handling stolen goods) and total other offences (including drug offences, liquor (excluding drunkenness)) occurring in Surfers Paradise. Findings from Broadbeach indicated that CCTV had no impact on total offences or total offences against property (including other theft (excluding unlawful entry) and other property damage). [Bond University Humanities & Social Sciences papers 2006]

 

The American studies that met the criteria for the meta-analysis generally showed worse outcomes that those in the UK, showing an undesirable or null effect on crime….

Regarding violent crime, there appeared to be no statistically significant change in the level of crime anywhere in the 500 foot range around the cameras. [American Civil Liberties Union]

 

But before we rush to put all of Melbourne under surveillance, we should heed the example of Britain, which, in the past 20 years has spent billions of dollars on more than a million CCTV cameras across its cities, yet still has one of the highest crime rates in Europe.

Indeed, four years ago the policeman in charge of monitoring London's massive CCTV network described it as "an utter fiasco" that was responsible for solving only 3 per cent of crimes.

Detective Chief Insp Mick Neville said that police often avoided trawling through CCTV images "because it's hard work" and he believed criminals had no fear of CCTV.

The marginal effectiveness of CCTV in preventing crime has been well known for at least a decade. In 2002 a British Home Office review of studies into the effectiveness of CCTV in preventing crime found the overall reduction in crime in areas with CCTV was only 4 per cent. Half the studies examined showed CCTV had no effect on crime at all, and all showed it had no effect on violent crime. [The Herald Sun 28 September 2012]

 

The deputy director of the Sydney Institute of Criminology, Garner Clancey, says it is ''absolutely'' possible to move around the city without being caught on camera but most trips will be captured dozens if not hundreds of times.

However, there are questions over whether the huge costs to councils and the impositions on citizens' privacy are justified in an era when crime rates are falling.

''Crimes like motor vehicle theft and burglaries are falling,'' he said. ''Do we then say there's a point where cameras aren't cost-effective so we turn them off?

''Some of the crimes that have been increasing are around domestic violence where technologies like this will never have any impact so it's a difficult balancing act.'' [The Sydney Morning Herald 26 October 2012]

 

* Photograph found at Google Images