Clarence Valley Council opened the door wide and invited a ravenous wolf inside

Clarence Valley Council has agreed to allow another local government outside the Clarence River catchment area to purchase a 50 per cent interest in vital water supply licenses on the Nymboida River sub-catchment.

This effort to save money on the final purchase price agreed with state-owned Essential Energy will cost Clarence Valley communities dearly in the future, as Coffs Harbour City Council continues expanding its rate base through unsustainable urban and industry development to the detriment of the aesthetic, cultural, environmental, economic values of the Clarence River system.

Clarence Valley Independent, 15 September 2021:

After many years of secret negotiations between Clarence Valley Council (CVC) and Essential Energy (EE), Coffs Harbour City Council (CHCC) and CVC will each hold a 50 per cent share of “the disused Nymboida Hydro Power Scheme and associated water licences” once the deal is settled……

Mr Lindsay clarified the ownership breakdown, given that CHCC was not party to the confidential agreement between CVC and EE.

“The actual land and infrastructure are purchased by the CVC, in name, but Coffs Harbour, by their regional water supply agreement [with CVC], will contribute 50 per cent,” he said.

Mr Lindsay said CVC met with EE yesterday (after the paper’s editorial deadline) to discuss a minor subdivision, to accommodate EE’s existing substation, and whatever else needs to be done to “achieve settlement”, including the lodgement of a development application (DA) for the substation subdivision.

Mr Lindsay said the settlement period was “lengthy” and that the “water licences haven’t been transferred yet”, so he was unable to provide an estimated finalisation date.

“Just so we are clear on the value of the purchase,” he said, “the whole process has been reviewed by NSW Treasury and they’ve given their okay.”……

Meanwhile, all references to the Nymboida power and water decisions made by councillors over past years were removed from CVC’s ‘Council Meeting Checklist – Update on Actions Taken’, following the July 2021 CVC meeting, including the investigation of recommissioning the hydro station.

When asked why the items were removed, Mr Lindsay said, “It’ll become clear when the confidential resolution form the July extraordinary meeting is made [public]; it’ll become clear then.”…..

Coffs Harbour City Council’s general manager, Steve McGrath, said the deal was an “essential step in concluding security for the Coffs Harbour City and CVC water supplies”.

“CHCC look forward to working with CVC to formalise the governance arrangements around the regional water supply scheme, through the appropriate treatment and recognition of the applicable water supply assets involved in the Nymboida power station and licences,” he said in the media release…...

Quite rightly NSW Government refuses request not to release environmental flow waters into Shannon Creek - Clarence Valley & Coffs Harbour City councils expected to honour their undertakings

 

Shannon Creek Dam
IMAGE: Clarence Valley Council

The Daily Telegraph, 23 October 2020: 

North Coast local council areas will be forced back onto Level One water restrictions after the State Government refused a request from Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour councils to keep more than two billion litres of water in the Shannon Creek Dam. 

Clarence Valley Council water cycle manager Greg Mashiah said a one-time exemption to the NSW Government’s license agreement had been requested, however, a verbal response had now been received declining the request. 

“Under our transparent extraction licence we need to release all the water that flows down the Shannon Creek into the dam,” he said. “This mimics the natural flow of the creek – the volume of water flowing into the dam must equal the volume flowing out.” Mr Mashiah said the water that came into the dam from Shannon Creek during the February flood had not yet been released. “We are currently waiting for written advice from the NSW Government with instructions on how they want the release to take place,” he said.

Rabbits Eat Lettuce won't be dancing at Upper Orara this weekend

Rabbits Eat Lettuce 2014 from SADOWSKI on Vimeo.

A Rabbits Eat Lettuce dance party in 2014

Coffs Harbour City Council v Rabbits Eat Lettuce Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 2, 14 January 2015:

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. Council seeks an interlocutory injunction to restrain a “dance party” it expects the respondents to hold on Saturday/Sunday 17 – 18 January at 500 Fridays Creek Rd, Upper Orara, or at some other probably remote location within Council’s area.
2. It would be a 24 hour event occupying its site from 12 noon Saturday to 6pm Sunday, and is intended to serve as a “taster” for a three day event over Easter.
3. On Council’s application to me as Duty Judge, at around 3pm yesterday (Tuesday), I agreed to hear the injunction application at 11am today (Wednesday).
4. The respondents are known to Council and to the local police, from their earlier dance party ventures, which generated many problems and complaints, and there have been negotiations over time, which have yielded a range of contact details, but have resulted in no undertakings being given by the respondents.
5. I am satisfied that the dance party promoters, the 1st and 2nd respondents, know of today’s hearing, and that the 3rd respondent, who owns the subject site, but is apparently in hospital, is at least on notice of the application being made to me prior to the scheduled event.
6. As no respondents have chosen to appear or be represented today, I granted leave to Council to proceed ex parte.
7. It is in the interests of all interested persons, including up to 2,000 intended participants, that this decision be given immediately.
8. It is clear on the cases – e.g. Baulkham Hills Shire Council v Horseworld Australia Pty Ltd, BC9707595, (Land and Environment Court (NSW), Lloyd J, 27 June 1997, unrep), Byron Shire Council v The Rising Damp Corporation Pty Ltd [2001] NSWLEC 260, and an earlier decision involving the 2nd respondent, Bellingen Shire Council v Lamir-Pike [2010] NSWLEC 195 – that dance parties of this type are “development” within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EPA Act”).
9. Also, the Coffs Harbour planning documents, especially the Local Environmental Plans of 2000 and 2013, require a Development Consent or a “temporary use” approval to be in place.
10. It is also clear to the Court that the respondents know of these legalities – indeed one has admitted the absence of compliance – and that no relevant approval is in place.
11. These matters establish that there are serious issues to be tried in the substantive proceedings, and that is a vital consideration on the question of granting interlocutory relief.
12. It is in the public interest to restrain development which is in breach of the EPA Act, but, in addition, all the evidence suggests that the proposed event poses serious threats to public safety and the environment generally. There is also evidence that some aspects of the suggested venue represent breaches of the planning regime in the area, and may themselves pose a safety threat.
13. The relevant principles for the granting of ex parte interlocutory relief are well established – see Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1;118 CLR 618, American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396; [1975] 1 All ER 504,Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia [1986] HCA 58; 161 CLR 148, Silktone Pty Ltd v Devreal Capital Pty Ltd (1990) 21 NSWLR 317, Tegra (NSW) Pty Ltd v Gundagai Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 806; 160 LGERA 1, Shoalhaven City Council v Bridgewater Investments Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 103, Save Our Figs Inc v General Manager Newcastle City Council [2011] NSWLEC 207;186 LGERA 127, and Hume Coal Pty Ltd v Alexander [2012] NSWLEC 267.
14. They have been previously applied to dance party situations, such as occurred in Bellingen Shire Council v Lamir-Pike [2010] NSWLEC 195, and in the other cases to which Council refers in paragraph 20 of its submissions.
15. Some of those particular cases were brought immediately before, or shortly after, the event commenced, but in this case I am satisfied that no exercise of discretion in favour of the event is justified on the grounds of any alleged delay on Council’s part. In this case, the orders I intend to make will or should be served at least 48 hours prior to the advertised starting time of the event.
16. Those orders were articulated in the summons and amended summons, but had been clearly foreshadowed in warning correspondence sent to the respondents by hand, by email, by post of various types, by facsimile, and lately via Facebook.
17. Apart from the large number of likely patrons, huge vehicular traffic is expected (Exhibit C1, tab 1, p20). The relevant senior Council officer, Mr Oliver, deposes to the constraints of the site – flood risk, threat to water quality and koala habitat, fire risk, poor emergency and other access and evacuation arrangements, and likely neighbour impacts.
18. Those concerns are echoed by the two police witnesses (Inspector Jameson and Sergeant Roach), and the Court notes that Council had put the respondents on formal notice of its safety concerns in a letter dated 11 April 2014.
19. The balance of convenience clearly lies in favour of granting Council the relief it seeks.
20. I am satisfied, apart from lack of consent, that inadequate attention will be paid to the State Government’s “Dance Party Guidelines 1998” or Sgt Roach’s “Standard Operation Procedures Manual 2008”.
21. In all the circumstances, especially those regarding time, I accept Council’s submission that, because of public interest considerations, I should apply Rule 4.2(3) of this Court’s Rules, and not require Council to give an undertaking as to damages.
22. I make the following orders:

1.    Pending the final determination of this application or until further order of the Court:

a)    The First and Second Respondents by themselves, their servants, agents or assigns be restrained from the carrying out of a dance party event known as the 'Rabbits Eat Lettuce Launch Party' on 17 and 18 January 2015 as advertised on the website www.rabbitseatlettuce.com.au and the social media site Rabbits Eat Lettuce Facebook Page at premises known as 500 Fridays Creek Road, Upper Orara or on land within the local government area of Coffs Harbour City Council, without the prior development consent of Coffs Harbour City Council.

b)    The Third Respondent by himself, his servants, agents or assigns be restrained from carrying out or permitting, causing or suffering the carrying out of a dance party event known as the 'Rabbits Eat Lettuce Launch Party' on 17 and 18 January 2015 as advertised on the website www.rabbitseatlettuce.com.au and the social media site Rabbits Eat Lettuce Facebook Page at premises known as 500 Fridays Creek Road, Upper Orara, or on land within the local government area of Coffs Harbour City Council without the prior development consent of Coffs Harbour City Council.

2.    The Applicant to have leave to serve the First and Second Respondents by:

a)    delivery of a sealed copy of these orders to premises known as 4 Braithwaite Ave, Bellingen by 1pm Thursday 15 January;

b)    serving the First Respondent by its known email address info@rabbitseatlettuce.com.au by 6:00pm on Wednesday 14 January 2015; and

c)    serving the Second Respondent via his known email address info@rabbitseatlettuce.com.au by 6:00pm on Wednesday 14 January 2015.

3.    The Applicant has leave to serve the Third Respondent by delivery of a sealed copy of these orders to premises known as 500 Fridays Creek Road, Upper Orara.

4.    Direct that the Applicant cause notice of these orders to be posted at a prominent location at the entrance to any property notified as a site for the proposed dance party event.

5.    The Respondents jointly and severally are to pay the Applicant's costs of these proceedings to date.

6.    The parties to have liberty to apply to the Duty Judge on short notice.

7.    The substantive proceedings are stood over to the first Friday List for 2015, Friday 6 February 2015.

NSW Government currently canvassing support for commercial netting of Pine, Bonville, Boambee and Newports estuary creeks

Boambee Creek mouth at Cchange Adventure

NSW Baird Coalition Government’s proposed Reform Program For NSW Commercial Fishing:

Estuary General Fishery

Number of meshing nets 

 If managing the meshing share classes by the number of meshing and flathead nets, a meshing endorsement holder would be able to use one meshing net (or flathead net where relevant) up to a maximum length of 725 metres for every 125 meshing shares. A shareholding of 250 shares would allow the endorsement holder to use two meshing nets (or flathead nets where relevant) with a maximum length of 725 metres for each net. 

Length of meshing nets 

 If managing the meshing share classes by the maximum meshing and flathead net length, a meshing endorsement holder would be able to use up to a maximum of 725 metres of meshing net (or flathead net where relevant) for every 125 meshing shares. A shareholding of 250 shares would entitle the endorsement holder to use up to a maximum of 1,450 metres of meshing net (or flathead net where relevant). Alternatively, one share could equate to 5.8 metres of meshing net. A share holding of 125 shares would entitle the endorsement holder to use up to a maximum of 725 metres of meshing net (or flathead net where relevant). A shareholding of 150 shares would entitle the endorsement holder to use up to a maximum of 870 metres of meshing net (or flathead net where relevant), and so on.

All submission forms are due back by 8am Monday 19th May 2014 and forms for those who are not commercial fishers can be download here.

The Coffs Coast Advocate 8 May 2014:

A proposal to net large swathes of local creeks is ringing alarm bells among local users of the estuaries.

Sawtell resident and avid canoeist Rod Edwards said the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) is currently canvassing support for the commercial netting of the Pine, Bonville, Boambee and Newports creeks.

He said the proposals in relation to the Pine and Bonville Creeks would be for netting to be allowed within the boundaries of the Bongil Bongil National Park for all species of fish as well as prawns.

Rod said the use of massive nets would be permitted, with the use of a method known as splashing allowed between sunset and sunrise from June to August.

"The proposal is to allow nets of a staggering 400m in length to be used," Rod said.

"This will decimate fish stocks and the amenity of recreational fishers.

"More importantly, it is within the National Park entirely for Pine Creek and east of the Highway for Bonville Creek. Native bird populations within the National Park which feed and are protected under current legislation will be directly affected if this proposal is allowed to be approved."….

Coffs Harbour City Council:

The Boambee/Newports Estuary has a roughly rectangular shape catchment area of approximately 49 km². It extends about 8 km from the coast with a coastal floodplain of approximately 3 km wide. It consists of three main tributaries: the largest being Newports Creek in the north; Boambee Creek is next largest and drains the middle portion of the catchment; and Cordwells Creek the smaller of the catchments drains the south. The Boambee/Newports Estuary is permanently open to the ocean and has no artificial entrance training works, as it is naturally trained by Boambee Headland on the southern side.

Two Days In June: Capitol Hill going to battle on the Pacific Highway

The Daily Examiner online 19 June 2012:

STATISTICALLY, there is a strong likelihood that somewhere between 20 and 30 people will die on the Pacific Hwy between Hexham and the Queensland border in the next 12 months…...

Port Macquarie independent MP Rob Oakeshott instigated the debate in the lower house when he moved a motion calling for the "urgent need for a commonwealth-state funding agreement" to meet the 2016 duplication deadline…..

A delegation from Clarence Valley Council, including Mayor Richie Williamson, sat in the public gallery for some of the debate……
Mr Oakeshott asked Mr Truss twice during his 10-minute speech to table the memorandum of understanding many federal and state Coalition MPs claim exists outlining the 80-20 funding split. No document was tabled.

Cr Williamson and Coffs Harbour Mayor Keith Rhoades met with Mr Albanese late on Tuesday.

Cr Williamson, who chairs the Pacific Hwy Taskforce, described the talks as "honest and direct".

Excerpt from the House of Representatives Hansard 19 June 2012:

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (1511):

I also warn the House that, if an agreement cannot be reached, North Coast communities will take matters into their own hands. Two months ago, for example, in a community at Urunga there was a very serious attempt to blockade the highway.

That would have significant impacts on a whole range of businesses and affect the function of the North Coast, but that is how frustrated communities have been in the past. That blockade was narrowly avoided for a couple of reasons. I do not fear but I expect and warn this House that, unless an agreement can be put in place, there will be blockades on the highway by communities so frustrated and so cynical about the promises that have been made but not delivered upon….

There is no such thing as a memorandum of understanding that is 80-20. And it is a complete disguise to try and cover the tracks of people who promised big, who overpromised, who got elected on this platform of finishing this job and who have underdelivered. They have failed. And they are going to cost lives unless this issue can be saved somehow, quickly, in the interests of the communities of the North Coast…..

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:26): I, frankly, was shocked that the members of the National Party and the Liberal Party refused to even stand up out of their seats and support this debate being conducted today. …..

They say, 'There are pressures on our budget. We've lost $5 billion of revenue.' This government had to take a $140 billion hit to revenue as a result of the global financial crisis but I went into our budget processes and argued the case. I argued the case; this lot just rolled over. In New South Wales they rolled over for the Liberals. So they have $3.3 billion for a project that will cost at least $14 billion. And they have abandoned the commitment to the Pacific Highway.

I have a meeting scheduled with the roads minister next Thursday. The New South Wales government has, between now and next Thursday, to get on board and actually do. The National Party of old would not have rolled over. McEwen would not have rolled over like this. They would have demanded support for this national project that has been recognised by Infrastructure Australia. Yet the current Leader of the National Party signed documents about the fifty-fifty funding when he was the transport minister. But to give him some credit, at least he was not the local member, the transport minister, Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, as the former member for Lyne was, at that time. They had the other leaders—the former member for Richmond was another National Party leader—and local members all up and down the coast, but they still did not do anything to fix this problem. But they have an opportunity, and we ask nothing more and nothing less than that they keep to their word and do what they said they would do, which is to do their bit.

What will we do? We have on the table dollar-for-dollar funding. The money will go to the Pacific Highway. We will provide 50 per cent funding. It is a matter of what the timeframe is. We know that 2016 is achievable. Those opposite have gone away and said that it is not achievable. We have produced the timeframe with the projects.

I make this point: last week we had the extraordinary position where people on the other side of the chamber were talking about pork-barrelling. The member for Dawson said:

You can only write it down to pork-barrelling and vote buying.

Of the current action on the Pacific Highway, 92 per cent is in coalition seats. If you want an example of a national government rising above politics it is this government and this project. All we ask is that those opposite do what they said they would do. They have that opportunity in the next couple of weeks. They need to deliver on their commitments, because this project is too important to play politics with.

Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (15:41): The Prime Minister promised the member for Lyne that this road would be duplicated by 2016. I guess that should have been an early marker that the deadline would never be met, because this Prime Minister never honours her word—we are only 12 days away from the carbon tax that we were never going to have. I might add that this is a carbon tax which is going to make the construction of the Pacific Highway more expensive. It will be more difficult to achieve the objective because the cost of building the road will be significantly higher than it would have been without a carbon tax…

Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond—Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) (15:52): We have heard a number of quotes but there is one I would like to give from the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, on 8 March 2011. He said:

Only the NSW Liberals and Nationals are committed to completing the upgrade of the Pacific Highway by 2016.

It is very convenient that he said that prior to the last state election. We certainly heard a lot of National Party members up and down the North Coast saying the same sorts of things and calling on the state Labor government to match that funding. They have all gone quiet now. They are all in hiding, as they always are—every single one of them—because they have been unable to deliver that.

Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (15:59): If we have a look at the stats, we see that they are quite informative. The total length of the section of highway in question is 664 kilometres; 346 kilometres are completed; 318 kilometres are still to go; 60 kilometres are under construction; 121 kilometres are planned; and 137 kilometres are not even in receipt of planning approval. If we look at the time it takes to build some of these very extensive civil works projects—I see the member for Page up there, and there was a massive task completed on the Ballina bypass—we realise that it takes years to do these things. There are huge engineering challenges. There is subsidence in the soil because of the very unstable nature of many of the alluvial flats that have to be crossed on some of the remaining sections. It is a huge task, and 137 kilometres have not even had planning approval yet. With a three-year-plus construction timetable, a lot of planning has to happen between now and the end of the year for there to be any hope of the project being completed by the end of 2016.

The reality is that there is no hope—

Ms SAFFIN (Page) (16:12): I rise to speak to this motion. I am pleased that we are talking about the Pacific Highway but not pleased that we are still talking about trying to get the New South Wales government to honour the commitment that they gave to a fifty-fifty funding split. They should just really get on with it.

I listened very carefully to the honourable member for Cowper's contribution. The member for Cowper said in this place in a motion on notice:

The Pacific Highway is a state road designed, built, owned and maintained by the New South Wales state government. The Pacific Highway is a state road.

The member for Cowper said that people on the North Coast are sick of the bickering. And they are, I know, I am a local—I represent the local people. They are sick of the bickering but they are also sick of the litany of lies that have been told about the funding commitments for the Pacific Highway…

But I come back to the fifty-fifty issue. A lot of locals say: 'We don't care who funds it, we just want it funded, we just want it done.' And I agree with them: we do not care at that level. But I do care when people are elected into public positions on an issue like the Pacific Highway—particularly the National Party members. They have given these commitments all the way through. They have inveigled, they have called on other people to make sure they honour that fifty-fifty funding split, and then when it comes to the 2016 deadline, at the first opportunity they get they run away from it at 100 miles per hour. Why aren't they honourable enough to fess up and say, 'We aren't going to do this, but this is what we are going to do'? First of all they construct this 80-20 funding split. Extra money is allocated to the Pacific Highway from the federal government. It is stimulus money. If you have a look at the tabulation of the money that has been available, you can see it. It is there. And then they turn around and use it like a weapon and say it is 80-20. It was not 80-20 and they know it. And it shows in some of their budget papers. It was fifty-fifty.

And then we come to the next astounding allegations. They are actually just lies. I have got one here. I got one last night that came through in a newsletter by the Nationals MP for Clarence, Chris Gulaptis. He talks about getting on with the job of the funding of works on the Pacific Highway, saying 'despite a shock $2.3 billion funding cut in the Gillard government's May budget'—another lie. They just put spin on anything. I cannot believe it. They are putting it out with taxpayers paying for it, and it is another pack of lies……

Excerpt from the House of Representatives Hansard 18 June 2012:

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:34): I thank the member for Lyne for his question and for his ongoing commitment to upgrading the Pacific Highway. Indeed, in the federal budget this year we did announce an additional $3.56 billion funding for the nation-building program and we indicated that it would be available for the Pacific Highway on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis. We also indicated that it was possible to achieve the joint objective, first put down by the Howard government, of a full duplication of the highway by 2016. So I was indeed very disappointed by the fact that the New South Wales government has failed to step up to this opportunity in spite of the fact that year after year they made promises that they would deliver matching funds for the Pacific Highway and that they were committed to the full duplication by 2016. They failed to deliver.

Premier O'Farrell, Deputy Premier Stoner and Minister for Roads and Ports, Duncan Gay, are all on the record time after time that they would make it a top priority. Indeed, they said that the reason was that there was a $5 billion cut in funding for New South Wales in terms of revenue expectations. The fact is that this government found space to provide the increased funding in the nation-building program even though there is a $140 billion drop in revenue as a result of the global financial crisis. The NRMA came out for New South Wales to match the funding. But it gets even worse. Last year, the state government Treasurer, Mike Baird, said in his budget speech:

In its last Budget, the Commonwealth allocated $750 million …

… we are determined to provide the funds needed to match the Commonwealth offer.

In the budget papers of last week it is very clear that that figure has become $468 million—that is, they have cut funding for the Pacific Highway by $300 million on what they promised just 12 months ago.

What does the National Party do about this? The Leader of the National Party goes out there and says that 2016 cannot be achieved and he would be very disappointed if duplication was not achieved by 2020. He would not commit one cent of additional funding for the Pacific Highway in spite of the fact that we have already committed $4.1 billion dollars. They committed $1.3 billion over 12 long years…………….

The fact is that the government had introduced additional funding for the Pacific Highway through the economic stimulus plan, including the Kempsey bypass. The longest bridge in Australia is being constructed there. Indeed, on the weekend we opened—through Senator Thistlethwaite, the duty senator for Cowper, and the state National Party member—an interchange on the Kempsey bypass. There is not one cent of state government money going into that section of the highway. They are happy to turn up to the openings but they do not want to actually deliver.

I table for the benefit of the House my letter to Michael Daley, the New South Wales Minister for Roads, indicating my disappointment with the funding for the Pacific Highway that the former state Labor government that did not do well enough on the Pacific Highway had done. I table the Sydney Morning Herald article 'Rees bungle costs state $50 million' about how I reduced funding for New South Wales due to the failure of the former government to deliver. I table the letter from David Campbell, the then Minister for Transport and Roads in the New South Wales government, asking for fifty-fifty funding for the Pacific Highway, and I table my response rejecting the proposition of Minister Campbell for the New South Wales government. (Time expired)

Update:

The Daily Examiner 21 June 2012:

THE call to divert $2 billion of federal funding from the "dumped" Epping to Parramatta rail line to help pay for the completion of the Pacific Hwy upgrade is utterly ridiculous and nothing short of a smokescreen, Federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese told The Daily Examiner yesterday.
The idea to reassign the funds was raised by Clarence MP Chris Gulaptis on Tuesday and supported by Pacific Highway Taskforce chair Richie Williamson who had been in discussions with NSW Transport Minister Duncan Gay yesterday.
"What they're saying is the Federal Government should break one of its election promises so it can fund one of the NSW Government's election commitments," Mr Albanese said.
"I met with Richie yesterday and at no stage did he mention any of these issues; in fact he agreed that the State Government needed to contribute more and deliver on its commitments."

You want an apology? Think again, Mr. Mayor

One suspects that Coffs Harbour City Mayor Cr Keith Rhoades may be regretting his insistence on an initial apology from Cr. Mark Graham (in the latest mayoral manoeuvre in a distinctly Byzantine local government saga) on 15 December 2011 - followed by an ineffectual demand for a second apology.

One local wag went so far as to post a transcript of this 'apology' in the online comments section of The Coffs Coast Advocate, which is appreciated as at the time of writing Council still had not published the minutes of this meeting on its website.

By pedrowe from Corindi Beach on 16/12/2011 at 2:25PM

For those who haven't read or heard the apology, here it is.... brilliant…………………………………………

1. I am sorry that Council has used two Conduct Review procedures that are not prescribed within the Code of Conduct. Specifically they are:

a. appointing a Sole Conduct Reviewer who is not independent or unbiased as she has received significant remuneration from Council to provide advice on corporate governance failures surrounding the Rigby House refit prior to her appointment as a Sole Conduct Reviewer. The Code of Conduct is very clear in requiring that Conduct reviewers are independent and unbiased. None of the three members of the Conduct review committee appointed by this Council have an existing pecuniary relationship with Council.

b. appointing a “peer reviewer”. The Code of Conduct does not contain a procedure for appointing a “peer reviewer”.

2. I am sorry that Council has allowed a Sole Conduct Reviewer with multiple conflicts of interest to continue to investigate me. I am sorry that the General Manager has decided to waste ratepayers funds engaging both a Sole Conduct reviewer with multiple conflicts of interest and a “peer reviewer”, given that there is no procedure for appointing a “peer reviewer” within our adopted Code of Conduct.

3. I am sorry that Council has failed to learn from the corporate governance failures that led to the sacking of the former General Manager.
4. I am sorry that Council has used improper and politically motivated conduct review procedures in an attempt to prevent public disclosure of the ongoing involvement of the Mayor and two other Councillors in the corporate governance failures that led to the sacking of the former General Manager.

5. I am sorry that Council has improperly used the Code of Conduct against my open, transparent and perfectly legal handling of the Rigby House refit and the sacking of the former General Manager.

6. I am sorry that the Sole Conduct Reviewer has consistently misrepresented my conduct and published material that defames me. The Sole Conduct Reviewer has implied that my conduct has been dishonest and unlawful. I demand an immediate retraction of these defamatory statements and an apology from her for defaming me.

7. I am sorry that the Public Officer, a subject of complaints against me, has been involved in investigations into my conduct on behalf of the General Manager. This is a clear conflict of interest that the Public Officer has failed to disclose.

8. I do not apologise for any of my conduct as I have not breached the Code of Conduct. Reading the following statement from correspondence between the Mayor and the General Manager “Finally, this matter is only known by the three Councillors and the several staff involved. The matter will and, I repeat, will stay with these people” does not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct. This statement is not confidential. Nor are the statements “Mayor has been kept informed of the progress of this investigation from the commencement. How can the work done be less than $150000 and not have gone out to tender” or “Probably the most important part of this correspondence is that in another dot point related to building refurbishment costs were confirmed in February 2010 as being $1million”.

9. I do not apologise for sending Council’s Acting Public Officer a written request for legal advice relating to the dismissal of the former General Manager. She did not respond to my correspondence. Leaving two voicemail messages with the Acting Public Officer requesting to be provided with this legal advice does not constitute a breach of Code of Conduct. At no stage have I spoken with the officer or made any improper requests of her. I required the legal advice to enable me to meet my obligations under the Local Government Act. The failure to provide me with this advice prevented me from meeting my obligations under the Act.

Antimony mining raises ugly head

Another North Coast resident adds her voice to the protest and asks, "Why do the local Australian people seemingly have no recourse to consult or object or reject such dangerous toxic projects and why are our local, state and national representatives supporting these projects. They are clearly not in the national interest."

Letter to the editor, The Coffs Coast Advocate

I live in an idyllic little community on the Dorrigo plateau amid pristine rainforests at the head waters of the catchment area for the Clarence River (Wild Cattle Creek) as well as living and working here in Coffs as an osteopath.

Once again the spectre of mining (this time antimony) has raised its ugly head.

The old mine processed its antimony at a site in Urunga which is now a toxic dead zone. Hillgrove Antimony mine has polluted the Macleay River, which feeds Kempsey.

The mine at Wild Cattle Creek just up from us, has been bought from Anchor mines, which was an Australian-owned company, by a Chinese consortium. I've heard it claimed that China is no longer mining antimony in their own country due to the toxic pollution levels it causes. Antimony is used in plastic drinking bottles and microchip technology and is extremely harmful to the health of human and other life forms.

It is with alarm that I've learned that more than 90% of all mining leases in this country are now owned by Chinese and Indian companies.

My question is how has this been allowed to happen? Why is it that we no longer own or control our own resources and pleas for help fall on deaf ears as really serious long-term pollutants are released into our pristine waters.

What I really don't understand is the legislative process in relation to mining rights and why we, the local Australian people, seemingly have no recourse to consult or object or reject such dangerous toxic projects and why our local, state and national representatives are supporting these projects. They are clearly not in the national interest. Why has the whole country been sold from underneath us?

I understand that we need minerals and mining but it seems to me that it needs to be done responsibly with a great emphasis being put on the value of what is mined and care being taken to use these valuable products in the most responsible way, so that they can be recycled and reused to limit the amount of earth disruption that takes place when they are removed and processed.

Surely we need to change our attitude to the Earth's resources and see them as precious and finite and legislate to protect the other living creatures and ecosystems that are affected by there removal.

Claire Thompson

Source: Letters, 25/10/11, Coffs Coast Advocate