Reader Alert! Pistols, or perhaps handbags, at 10 paces at dawn

Two very seasoned correspondents who appear regularly (some might say, "too regularly") in The Daily Examiner's letters columns seem set for one almighty brawl. 

The correspondent from the lower end of the valley (the area that contributes vast amounts of $$$s to the coffers of the local council and helped bail out the cash-strapped upper valley council via a process of enforced amalgamation) has thrown a red flag in the face of the true-blue, conservative commentator from upstream.

Watch this space!

Clarence Valley Council gets a serve over rates

With Clarence Valley Shire Council seemingly under the thumb of the Grafton business district, most councillors bracing for yet another stoush with the valley community over its rates structure and Mayor Richie Williamson apparently desperate to defer trouble until after the March 2011 NSW general election campaign at which he is standing as an independent, one Yamba resident demonstrates that none of these elected representatives are going to have an easy ride by deferring the coming storm to a committee which will not report to council until 2012:

Get priorities right

CVC's recent decision to place on public exhibition Grafton's estimated $6.6m waterfront precinct plan at a time when the GM Mr McPherson attempted to increase rates above the pegged rate increase on the basis of councils diminished capacity to fund capital works, suggest a council out of touch with mainstream community needs.

It can hardly be said Grafton is doing it tough, $19.2m hospital, $5m Super clinic, $2m south CBD, $8m library, $2m Fisher Park, $78k Hawthorne Park, $50k Pioneer Park, $32k McKittrick Park, $50k rowing club etc.

Many of these facilities have to be matched with council funds as well as requiring extensive maintenance costs. Yet the stupor to this folly is that Grafton's rates are being reduced while the rates of the rest of the shire are being increased to make up the shortfall.

While council keeps records of the amount of rates each community pays, it does not keep records of the amount of services each community receives and therein lies a problem.

It is not suggested each community receives services amounting to the amount of income it provides. What is suggested is that as a democracy, we the people of this shire are entitled to transparent factual information that assists us in determining how we are governed.

That information should include where and how our monies are spent and not compromised by inadequate council records.

There is no excuse for council not disclosing that information. Upon amalgamation, council was provided with the financial records of each of the former councils including Grafton showing it to be living way beyond its means. Had these records been maintained, councillors as well as rate payers would know the present financial status of each of those former council areas.

It can hardly be argued those records would be too expensive to maintain when council can publish a $6.6m plan for a Grafton waterfront precinct.

Ray Hunt

Yamba

Disgraced former Nationals MP Steven Rhett Cansdell wants to enter politics once more?

On 2 December 2014 The Daily Examiner reported that sixty-four year old Steven Rhett Cansdell is considering standing at the March 2015 Clarence Valley Council by-election.

This would not be his first foray into politics and voters need to think long and hard if his name turns up on the by-election ballot paper.

Cansdell previously served on Grafton City Council over a ten-year period commencing in 1993. 

This council was notorious for living well beyond its means - by 1999 it had used $1.722 million of internal reserves to fund current operating costs and was still running in deficit in June 2003. It disappeared in the forced amalgamation which saw the creation of Clarence Valley Council in February 2004.

After leaving local government Cansdell then stood at the next state election and entered the NSW Parliament on 22 March 2003 as the Nationals MP for Clarence.

He successfully stood for re-election in 2007 and 2011.

On 4 May 2011 Cansdell became Parliamentary Secretary for Police under the Minister for Police and Emergency Services Liberal MLC Mike Gallacher.

He resigned from Parliament on 16 December 2011 in the midst of questions concerning a statutory declaration and allegations that he (rather than one of his staff) was driving a speeding car caught by a traffic camera.

Twenty-two weeks after the state election Clarence electorate voters had to participate in the subsequent by-election. Based on the NSW Electoral Commission’s cost projection for the 2011 state election, the total bill for the two Clarence ballots would be in the vicinity of $903,000.

Politically, Cansdell appeared to sink from public sight after that by-election.

However, the details of Mr. Cansdell’s admitted wrongdoing and the local reaction lived on.

Political cartoon in The Daily Examiner on 24 January 2012:

Letter to the Editor in The Daily Examiner on 14 March 2012:

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 19 January 2013:

LESSONS FROM POLITICAL HOUDINI

The award for the most outstanding public escape act of recent times must surely go to the former member for Clarence, Steve Cansdell. 

You recall Cansdell: he was the former professional boxer and parliamentary secretary for police who became the O'Farrell government's first political casualty only months after it took office. 

The then 60-year-old quit Parliament after his admission that he had falsified a statutory declaration to claim a staff member was driving when his car was snapped by a speed camera.
Cansdell was trying to avoid losing his driver's licence. Despite the incident occurring back in September 2005, he fell on his sword in September 2011, amid a chorus of sympathy from his Nationals colleagues. 

Cansdell was "paying a very heavy price for a lapse of judgment six years ago", the leader of the Nationals and Deputy Premier, Andrew Stoner, said at the time. 

Only later did it emerge that shortly before Cansdell put his hands up, the staff member in question, Kath Palmer, had blown the whistle on the episode to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. 

So if Cansdell was not quite pushed - he claimed he quit to save the government and the party from embarrassment - he was very firmly nudged. 

Not only had Palmer alleged the statutory declaration fraud, she alleged that Cansdell had also rorted a parliamentary staffing allowance by wrongly claiming it for the period she worked on the 2010 campaign of a Nationals colleague, Kevin Hogan, who was contesting the federal seat of Page. 

And so began a very strange - many would say disturbing - series of events involving the ICAC, the police and the Speaker of the NSW Parliament that remain unresolved to this day.
In October last year, just over a year after Cansdell walked into Grafton police station with his lawyer to make his admission, police announced they had concluded their investigation into the statutory declaration matter. 

"NSW Police Force will not instigate criminal proceedings," they said in a statement. 

What had happened? The statement explained police from the Coffs-Clarence local area command had identified the woman who signed the declaration but that "she declined to be interviewed by officers". 

Futhermore, it added, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions had said it was "not satisfied there are reasonable prospects for conviction for a Commonwealth offence".
For the NSW police, that was the end of the matter. But they omitted a couple of key details. 

While it was true Palmer, through her lawyer, had refused to be formally interviewed, she had offered to make what is known as an "induced statement" - one given in return for indemnity from prosecution. 

According to Palmer's lawyer, Mark Spagnolo, the police had earlier made it known they intended to charge Palmer with perverting the course of justice for her role in the false statutory declaration. Any admission in an interview was likely to lead to her being charged. 

Police deny she was threatened with a charge but their decision to refuse her offer to supply an induced statement was rather ambitiously twisted to become Palmer "declined to be interviewed". 

Second, the Commonwealth DPP claimed it had been verballed. It said it had simply advised the NSW police that they were not satisfied it was a Commonwealth offence - a subtle but important difference. 

Things became even more intriguing when it emerged the ICAC had referred the allegation that Cansdell had rorted his parliamentary allowance to the Speaker of the NSW Parliament, Shelley Hancock, who was technically Palmer's employer. 

The ICAC referred the matter "for action as considered appropriate". But no action was taken for a year by Hancock, until Spagnolo released the letter publicly through Fairfax. 

After that Hancock, who is also the Liberal member for South Coast, promised that parliamentary officers would "review the material" sent by the ICAC. This included a spreadsheet containing the dates on which Palmer alleged Cansdell submitted claims for the allowance that differed from the days she worked. That was last October. 

What has happened since then? Hancock passed the matter to the executive manager of the Department of Parliamentary Services, Rob Stefanic, who responded that he was "unable to reach any conclusions regarding the veracity of the claims made by the former electorate officer". 

Stefanic added that because, in his opinion, the allegations were "of minor significance", that so much time had elapsed and that both Palmer and Cansdell had resigned, no further action should be taken "in the absence of more conclusive information". (Never mind that the allegations, if proven, are similar to those which saw two former Labor MPs, Angela D'Amore and Karyn Paluzzano, branded corrupt by ICAC.) 

When Hancock was asked if the Parliament would contact Palmer to request "more conclusive information", she said it would not. 

"As Ms Palmer did not make a complaint directly to the Parliament, the Parliament will not be contacting the complainant for further information." 

So, 18 months since Palmer made her official complaint, there the matter lies: a tangled mess of contradictory claims, dead ends and official inertia. 

Palmer is understood to be considering whether to pursue the matter with Parliament or drop it altogether to get on with her life. 

Spagnolo has called for an inquiry into the police handling of the matter. The silence has been deafening. 

Cansdell now says he has gone bankrupt. 

And, while there is no suggestion he is implicated, the man he is alleged to have helped out by fiddling his taxpayer-funded entitlements, Kevin Hogan, has won Nationals preselection to contest Page at this year's federal election. 

As a lesson in the frustrations of being a political whistleblower, it doesn't get much more instructive than that.

Maclean public car park, Cameron and McLachlan parks: he said, she said

Having recently listened to Clarence Valley councillors debate before voting to deny a $2.8 million boutique redevelopment of the older-style Surf Motel in Yamba, primarily on the basis that the architect had kept the allegedly 100 year-old frontage footprint in the plans before council and the lift well was 97cm higher than allowed with part of the rear of the building 27 cm higher than allowed, I can appreciate the sense of frustration building in a section of the Maclean community at the same nine councillors approach to the latest move by the company behind the IGA supermarket development.

The Maclean dispute has a long history and it’s not only the siting of the supermarket which has changed - some individual positions have also changed. Cr. Sue Hughes now supports the IGA supermarket development (with subsequent loss of parts of Cameron and McLachlan parks as well as part of the public car park) which started the row back in 2011-12.

Along the way there has also been one very odd instance of time and money wasting on council’s part which failed to amuse many Maclean locals.

Now it appears a war of words has erupted within the community and is being played out in the pages of one valley newspaper.

Open Letter to Clarence Valley Council in The Daily Examiner, 25 February 2015:

Dear Councilors,

We understand many Councilors perceive the activities of the Greater Maclean Community Action Group as negative and reactionary. Unfortunately that perception has arisen following public delivery of an objective and responsible planning assessment made of the proposed supermarket in Maclean's car park. Council only last Tuesday has voted to proceed with the rezoning of this application without having any proper understanding of what the full implications are.

For Councillors to understand the "negativity" from the residents we represent, a step back is needed to look at what has happened to Maclean.  It is no longer negativity they will see; it is now a considerable anger.  Maclean isn't dying, it is being killed.

Everyone sees the need for a "supermarket anchored shopping centre" (a direct quote from the now outdated Retail Strategy).  That is nothing like what is being proposed.  There is absolutely no provision for future growth or expansion.  Hasn't this Council ever heard of "long term planning"?

We have observed as a group this Councils lack of expertise and commitment to even the most basic concept of "Assets and Risk Management" and the pretence of public consultation.  Implicit in the process of Consultation is the recognition of the opinions expressed, acquiescence or rational informed debate to the contrary, and above all, feedback.  Council doesn't even pretend to do that.  If public consultation and "planning" were anything more than "box ticking", there just may have been some acknowledgement in the 10 year plan that Grafton is at high risk of becoming a rural backwater when the new Harwood Bridge and Pacific Highway are completed.  The State Corrective Services seem to have already realised that and no reasonable person actually believes there will be a second bridge over the Clarence at Grafton.

As for Maclean, in 10 years this Council has delivered very little positive value to the town.  But the negatives are numerous and significant.  There has not been so much as a new rubbish bin put in this town over all that time.  The main street is breaking up and will soon look like a patchwork quilt, if indeed it is patched at all.  The only new footpath constructed by Council in 10 years is 13 metres from the CBD car park. It was constructed by throwing dry mix asphalt over grass, and is now almost completely overgrown. We now stand to lose most of what little green space we have in central Maclean and the destruction of the heritage in McLachlan Park seems imminent. We did, however, get a new toilet block which wasn't needed when there was already a perfectly good one just needing overhaul, at a fraction of the cost of the new one. I won't go further with the list but suffice to say it is very long.

The public meeting on Monday last was not sponsored by Council.  It should have been!  It explained very professionally exactly what was proposed in the DA for the supermarket and how it would impact on the town. It was the result of lot of effort by the Maclean Action Group and it drew the wholehearted support of the 3,000-strong Maclean Bowling Club.  There has been absolutely no response from Council to the issues presented. Public consultation is a box to be ticked and the responses are simply ignored. The supermarket debacle is only one of the many examples.

There were comments that audio visual presentation was difficult to hear and see.  Let me say that the Bowling Club is not a theatre and neither is the RSL.  Maclean has no theatre or anywhere else that is remotely suitable for public meetings or presentation using standard audio visuals.  There is a Civic Hall that is more than 100 years old, has a leaking roof and severe water damage to the ceiling and roof structure.  It is in that state because successive Councils have not carried out even basic routine maintenance.  I know of people who have left this town because they have to drive to Yamba to find anywhere they can have a family picnic and watch their children play.

Major trees (75-100 years old) have been removed and not replaced eg. the Taloumbi St Jacaranda and Fig trees.  The only four Camphor Laurels to be removed because of their genus are in one of only two small parks left in the town, if indeed the nature strip along the river can be called a Park.  There are estimated to be over 2000 Camphor Laurels growing in the Valley on public land but only the four delivering shade and ambience in Maclean are programmed for destruction and no "program" for the progressive removal and or replacement of the species exists.  Why the four in a Park in Maclean and why do this when the residents are overwhelming against it? Why would a Council crying poor even consider spending scarce cash on something like this? It's illogical and irrational.

However, all of that aside, the single most appalling facet of this Council Administration has to be the erratic and inconsistent application of its own drafted Policies, procedures and regulations.  Is it any wonder that the major investors bypass this Valley? It is just not worth the trouble, as the IGA no doubt is now starting to realize.  And that is why we will have to send our children away to find decent employment, and why we will pay rates 30% higher than inner city suburbs in Brisbane, and most other places in the State.

Do not for one moment interpret the absence of a Lower Clarence Candidate in the recent Council bi-election as an indication of complacency or acquiescence. It wasn't!  The years of disregard for the views and aspirations of the people of the Lower Clarence and the quest for responsible and professional planning may well materialize into something far more tangible in the lead-up to the next Council general election.

Ian Saunders, Hon Secretary GMCAG

A somewhat less than polite response published in The Daily Examiner, 27 February 2015:

COUNCILLORS, I am apologising in advance that you have had to put up with the blatant lies which have emanated from the Maclean Inaction Group letter.

A group of 100 people does not and will not ever represent the sum of all opinions on any matter, let alone that regarding a supermarket. It certainly does not represent the whole 3000 members of the bowling club.

It is unfortunate that the current discussion to move the supermarket does look like a variation on a plan, but it will undoubtedly be a better solution if shoppers have the current tar car parking to use while the supermarket is being built.

But let's get back to the letter:

Accusing the council of no provision for future growth. WRONG.

There is ample space for future growth, and this supermarket plus current supplies, according to the Maclean Urban Study (a plan I think) will be enough until 2031. But hey, the Maclean Action Group - a misnomer if ever there was one - say otherwise. They must be the experts.

Accusing the council of a pretence with public consultation. WRONG.

The Maclean Inaction Group did not even bother to put in a deputation when this was discussed two weeks ago, as the Chamber of Commerce did. A deputation is the correct forum for pleading your case.

Accusing the council of no feedback. WRONG.

The council replies by many methods: email, letters, phone calls, deputations on site, and when they call a public meeting to discuss the visions for the year, six people turn up.

Accusing the council is ignoring Grafton. Well, let Grafton solve its own problems and get its own Grafton Inaction Group. We've got enough up here if they want to share.

Accusing the council of doing very little in Maclean in 10 years. WRONG.

They have paved through the CBD; built a footpath from past Gulmarrad School all the way into the High School; built the Sports Centre; built the new toilets which were needed and connected the sections of grass in a much more usable way; re-done the stormwater around the bowling club and up the hill; done the garden roundabout at the Post Office.

They are in planning for a million-dollar upgrade of McLachlan Park and Wherrett Park, both of which should start as soon as the weather clears and the Highland Gathering is finished.

Accusing the council of not upgrading the main street. WRONG.

When council did the paving, they completely revamped the outside parking lanes of the main street. The centre lanes I believe are the responsibility of the RMS. Maybe this has changed?

Accusing the council of taking away what little green space we have in Maclean. WRONG.

This new supermarket concept actually gives Maclean residents more green space than supermarket one. Keep in mind IGA has a valid DA on supermarket one. If they believe the Maclean Inaction Group, they may go back and build version one without any further discussion, but this will definitely put pressure on the people of Maclean compared to option two.

Accusing council of not maintaining the Civic Centre. WRONG.

I would like to offer the Maclean Inaction Group some vouchers to Specsavers, so they can catch a glimpse of the fairly new green Colorbond roof on the Civic Centre and the brand new kitchen which has been put in. Yes the ceiling needs painting. I'll lend them a brush.

Accusing the council of not calling a public meeting on the issue. WRONG.

They did. Years ago. The chamber has called three public meetings on the issue, but because the Maclean Inaction Group didn't get the response they wanted, the group said these meetings were rigged.

The Action Group has called four meetings - I believe meetings where if you try to stand up and discuss the issues rationally you get told to "shut up". They are meetings where there is no option to give a view opposing to theirs.

Accusing council of not replacing trees in town. WRONG.

They have replaced several trees in town, particularly in the main street. To say that Maclean only has two parks is a blatant lie. To say that people have to go to Yamba to play in a park completely ignores the beautiful children's playground next to the very expensive Sports Centre built by council with partly a grant. Specsavers again?

Perhaps the people driving to Yamba are actually going to a beach, visiting their aunt or dare I say visiting a really big supermarket?

Accusing council of overcharging on rates compared to Brisbane City. Well, sadly that's the maths behind the problem.

If you have three million ratepayers paying rather than 2600, then the base price will always be less. It's called economies of scale. Council is not crying poor over these upgrades to Maclean, as they have grants and the sale money quarantined to be spent only on Maclean projects. This is fact.

The Maclean Inaction Group concludes their letter with a threat to pull the council into line at the next election. That is their democratic right.

However if they do get elected, they will find that legal constraints on councillors are far more rigorous than even they have any understanding of.

Successful decisions of council are an amalgamation (dare I use that word!) of councillors, council management and staff and proposals put before them.

Sometimes as, in this case, they are tweaked to get the best result. They are not the result of bullying.

Denise Worrill¹

Maclean

1. As Maclean Chamber of Commerce Secretary in 2009 Ms. Worrill was vocal in her support for sale of part of the car park to IGA.

Tiley v Williamson: Clarence Valley mayoral debate continues

I read with interest the letter placed in the Letters to the Editor column and submitted by Arthur Lysaght concerning the Election of the Mayor for the Clarence Valley Council.
The letter was written as an endorsement for Richie Williamson because he topped the poll and could be regarded as a Graftonian.

It is Arthur's right to go into bat for one of his own. It is also the right for others to give support for the incumbent Mayor Ian Tiley.
Graftonians have been smarting ever since a non-Graftonian was elected to the position of Mayor and they must be reminded that their turn will come, but let's hope it is not this year.

When amalgamation took place Ian Tiley was given the most difficult task of moulding the Councillors into a formidable group to look after the interests of the Valley which he has done.
A lot of decisions that have been made will not suit a lot of people but at the end of the day his actions, whilst he has been Mayor, have placed the council in a good position to face its second term.

Ian Tiley's cone of vision extends well beyond the precincts of Grafton and fairness for all of his constituents has been paramount in his thinking and in dealing with all the problems that are associated with being the Mayor.

This is the second time that the Valley has been confronted with the suggestion that "The one who tops the poll should be the Mayor."
Former councillor Chris Gulaptis was also in the same position, however, common sense prevailed and Councillor Ian Tiley, who has two degrees in Local Government, was elected to the job and has come through it with flying colours.

People should be reminded that just because you are popular doesn't necessarily make you the right person for the job.
Isn't it better that if you fly in an aircraft the pilot should have the right qualifications to fly the aircraft than just being popular back at the base?

I am sure that Richie Williamson will eventually become the Mayor as he is keen and young enough to wait for the right time.
Being at the microphone with gigantic headaches each day might prove to be just too much to handle.
But then again with the social life that he has led over the years it might be nothing new to him.
Don't rush things Richie, listen to the stories about the "old bull and the young bull," they will make if easier for you if you are elected but God help you if you don't take heed.

The Clarence Valley Council needs another term of Ian Tiley at the helm, as there are still many teething problems to overcome and it may prove to be a disaster if he is removed and replaced by someone with much less experience.

In conclusion, may I congratulate all the newly elected councillors on being elected and hope that the interests of the whole valley will be of the utmost importance and that parochialism does not come into any decision making.

APPSIE
Clarence Valley

* GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak@live.com.au for consideration.

Clarence Valley Council Election 2012 Candidate Scorecard: Week Four

Candidates standing for the nine councillor positions at the 8 September 2012 Clarence Valley Local Government Election are being rated on their individual campaigns to win over voters.

The score range is -10 to 10. Every candidate starts at zero (0)

Scoring began in the week ending 10 August 2012.

This week it’s all about honesty and ideas - somewhat truncated by the fact that this post in going online in the middle of a thunderstorm.

Name              Designation   Running Score

Rod Morrison Independent 2 + -1 = 1 This candidate loses ground this week, because he quite frankly puzzles. Action man photographs don’t replace good policy and the idea of more billboards visually littering  roadsides is daft - as is a transport hub on flood-prone land outside Maclean (-1).

Margot Scott Independent 2.5 Margot’s score remains the same as she adds little to the election debate this week.

Paul Parkinson -10 this candidate remains static. After apparently spending years away from Australia between 2004-2011 (according to a brief bio in the Macleay Community FM Radio May 2011 monthly newsletter), he settles in the Clarence Valley in time to enter his name on the rolls and as a candidate immediately starts telling everyone how to suck eggs. While the 360 degree turn Paul did on coal seam gas mining in order to discover it was a bad, bad thing did not appear sincere.

Craig Howe Independent 1.6 + - 0.6 = 1 Craig’s score goes into reverse, as the bottom line of his economic development plan for the Valley appears to be the release of more rateable land (-0.6). This has never been a successful solution in the past to low population growth, population decline or stagnant central business districts.

Andrew Baker Independent -10 This candidate cannot possibly score any lower and continues to outdo himself when it comes to denying the fact that not one but four of the companies in which he is a shareholder/director were listed this month by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission as under external administration.

Here is just one company snapshot of Lanai Pty Ltd from www.asic.gov.au

 Click on image to enlarge

Ursula Tunks Independent 3 + 0.5 = 3.5 This candidate inches forward on general performance but remains a bit of a wild card.

Joy de Roos 2 Unfortunately Joy stands still this week for her extraordinary belief that development applicants are not kept informed of the progress of their DAs.

Jim Simmons Independent 2 Doesn’t move an inch, because I’m still trying to think of something positive to say about Jim who as a councillor went to sleep after amalgamation and is yet to wake up.

Greg Clancy Independent 6.5 + 2 + 1= 8.5 This candidate increased his score again this week for producing one of the better campaign flyers and letterboxing it in the Lower Clarence (2). He also scores for continuing to lobby regarding residents’ concerns outside of his election campaign (1).

Jane Beeby Independent -4 Jane marks time as she has had nothing to say that hasn’t been said by candidates in past elections.

Sue Hughes Independent 5.5 + 1 + 1 = 7.5 Her score grows by two because Sue has a proven track record of standing up for community - her vote against McDonald’s DA and successful coal seam gas moratorium motion spring to mind (1) -  and because she keeps plugging away on local issues concerning residents (1).

Karen Toms 6.5 + 1 + 1 = 8.5 Increased her positive running score by producing one of the better campaign flyers this week (1) and because she keeps plugging away on local issues concerning residents (1).

Michael McIvor Independent 2 + -1 = 1 This candidate loses a point for commenting in one local paper as flashmanmicky and, unfortunately that sums him up accurately in the role of election candidate.

Jeremy Challacombe Independent -3 + -2 = -5 Another candidate who appears to believe local government should take a laissez-faire attitude to business (-1) and toss any legislative or by-law restrictions out the door if owners feel irked.

Richie Williamson 2.5 + 1 = 3.5 Richie’s score inches up on the basis that the incompetence and ignorance displayed by three other male candidates makes him appear an increasingly attractive option by comparison (1).

Margaret McKenna Independent -3 + -7 = -10 It took some doing but Margaret managed to hit rock bottom this week by attempting to save money and combine an CVTV magazine cover business advertisement with a plea to “Vote 1” for her on polling day (-7) – thereby probably breaking a number of NSWEC rules as the ad contained no authorization or contact address.

Jason Kingsley Independent 2 + -1 = 1 This candidate falls behind as he did not impress by joining the pack demanding local government reduce business rates, fees and charges yet be ready to perform miracles with reduced income (-1).

• Week Three Candidate Scorecard
• Week Two Candidate Scorecard
• Week One Candidate Scorecard

Clarence Valley Council: Dinham did what?

The Clarence Valley local government area elected its 9 shire councillors on the 13th September 2008.

Like many areas before it, the Valley voted almost blind when it came to most of the candidates found on the ballot paper.

Take newly-elected Clarence Valley shire councillor, Ian H. Dinham, for instance.

A relatively small number of voters knew that, before mandatory local government amalgamation, he had been a staff member at Maclean Shire Council and later headed the Clarence River County Council (CRCC), an entity which operated across all the then existing Clarence Valley local government areas.

Some voters also knew that while wearing the CRCC General Manager hat Ian Dinham was also elected a Maclean Shire councillor, which saw him in the ridiculous position as a councillor of voting to write to himself as a general manager and chronically late to almost every council meeting.

However, that is not all that Cr. Dinham now is.
Apparently when he stood for election to Clarence Valley Council (CVC) this month, he was and is a consultant engineer employed by Tweed Shire Council and has a current email address idinham@tweed.nsw.gov.au

But wait, there's more.
When Cr. Dinham was CRCC General Manager he got wind that the Valley-wide local government restructuring was coming, which would see the CRCC dissolved and a new agency created and, his alleged actions after that have been the subject of persistent and consistent rumour ever since.

Rumour has it that Cr. Dinham drew up his own redundancy agreement (with attached confidentiality agreement/clause) which allowed for him to receive a lump sum equal to two years full pay in the event his employment was terminated for any reason.
He supposedly then presented this to certain members of the CRCC board and had the agreement endorsed.

This rather unusual agreement would have seen Cr. Dinham pocket a sum coming closer to half a million dollars than the more modest standard 26-30 weeks pay other managers in similar situations usually received.

It is no wonder then that in the CRCC Annual Report 2003-04 as former general manager, he wrote: I wish to extend my very best wishes to the new Clarence Valley Council as we enter a new era of serving our community...

With all those coins allegedly jingling in his pocket Dinham then went on to become the Executive Manager of Clarence Valley Floodplain Service which effectively replaced the CRCC. Leaving one to wonder just how many days he actually spent redundant and unemployed.

He held this new position until around mid-2007.

It is my understanding that the local media recently approached Dinham concerning the circumstances of his redundancy pay-out and that he has flatly refused to comment. Safe in the knowledge that (whatever the actual circumstances of his redundancy package) former council and county council personnel records are sealed for the next 50 to 100 years.

Now another rumour is doing the rounds; that Ian Dinham wants to be Deputy-Mayor of Clarence Valley Council at the end of the month when the mayoral election is held.

Five questions spring to mind:

• if Cr. Dinham's redundancy package is not as described by rumour, why doesn't he deny the rumour when asked?
• how many employers does Cr. Dinham actually have?
• can Clarence Valley ratepayers afford this man?
• which council will now have his loyalty - Clarence Valley or Tweed?
• given the distance between the two local government areas, will he even bother to turn up to CVC monthly meetings?

The NSW Government’s Latest Attack On The Environment

How important is protection of the natural environment to the NSW Government? 

Many in the community believe that the Government gives it a very low priority.   There are even some who would assert that the NSW Coalition Government is conducting a war on the environment.

Concern about the Government’s environmental attitudes is the inevitable result of a series of its policies and legislation over recent years.  A few examples are its original very strong support for CSG and unconventional gas mining[1], its weakening of land-clearing and biodiversity protection laws[2], its strong support of coal mine expansions despite community opposition[3], and more recently, its plan to change the law to enable Lithgow’s Springvale Mine to stay open despite its threat to Sydney’s water catchment[4].

The latest major threat to the natural environment in NSW is the re-structure of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).  The National Parks and Wildlife Service, a part of the Office of Environment and Heritage,  manages more than 870 national parks and reserves covering over 7 million hectares of land  which is more than 9% of the state’s land area.

The restructure which is currently under way involves the amalgamation of administrative areas, and either the loss of experienced officers or their demotion to what will be little more than clerical roles with substantially reduced salaries.  In addition there are serious concerns about the effect of the changes on fire-fighting capacity as well as on pest management.

The changes resulting from this restructure will have serious effects throughout the state.

Grafton on the NSW North Coast, for years an administrative centre for NPWS, will lose that function. Despite Grafton’s location in the geographical centre of the new region, the administrative headquarters is being transferred to Coffs Harbour. 

Clarence Valley locals, having seen over recent years the steady transfer of state government jobs from Grafton to Coffs Harbour, are angry about this.  What makes this decision even more nonsensical to some Clarence residents is that the Clarence Valley LGA (Local Government Area) contains one of the biggest areas of national parks on the North Coast.  Clarence Valley Mayor, Cr Jim Simmons, pointed out recently that the Clarence had 2,262 sq km of national parks, 22% of the Council area, while Coffs Harbour, has only 42 sq km – a mere 4% of the Coffs council area.

While there is concern about job losses, the loss of expertise in the Service and the impact of this drawn-out and unfair process on the Service officers, there is another major concern – the long-term effect on our very important national parks estate.  Despite the claims by politicians, including the Nationals Member for Clarence, Chris Gulaptis, this is a cost-cutting exercise at a time when the Government has boasted about a record budget surplus of $4.5 billion.  Any claim that it is not cost-cutting when the NPWS budget has been reduced by $121 million is obviously ludicrous.

However, it is probably more than just a cost-cutting exercise.  It is almost certain that it is at least partly driven by the ideology of the Coalition Government a core part of which, according to John Menadue[5], is commercializing and privatising public assets.

With reference to this, Menadue said: “A clear case at the moment is the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. It is being deliberately underfunded and forced to seek private funding and promoting commercial access to public parks.

“Yet this is happening when, with growing population density, we have a greatly increased need for public parks, gardens and open space. Furthermore, we were able to fund our public parks for decades in the past when we were much poorer than we are today. We need to protect our parks more than ever and we have more money to do so. Yet state governments are screwing national parks with funds to force commercialization and privatization.”

In the same post Menadue quoted figures from John Benson about the downgrading of the NPWS[6]. “The number of rangers has been reduced by more than 90 over seven years. Only two of 14 regional managers have been appointed after a restructure and a similar threat faces critical staff at the area management level. Staff is so reduced in some regions that basic amenities cannot be maintained and a lack of field staff presence disappoints public visitor expectations.”

Despite all the spin from politicians and bureaucrats, it is obvious that the government intends to downgrade our national parks and is setting up the National Parks and Wildlife Service for failure. If the community, including that in our local area, does not protest vehemently enough, we will be stuck with this vandalism until this arrogant government is removed.

Hildegard

Northern Rivers

Footnotes

[1] In particular for Metgasco in the Northern Rivers – until the very strong community opposition forced a buy-back of the Metgasco licence.

[2] The 2016 Biodiversity Conservation Act and Local Land Services Amendment Act. There are strong concerns that this legislation will lead to huge biodiversity loss and allow broadscale land clearing.

[3] http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-case-of-bulga-village-is-part-of-a-broader-pattern-thats-hurting-nsw-20160524-gp298e.html

[4] http://www.smh.com.au/environment/nsw-bids-to-skirt-courts-coal-mine-ruling-by-weakening-laws-protecting-sydneys-water-20171008-gywt0o.html

[5]John Menadue’s blog -  https://johnmenadue.com/john-menadue-the-new-squatters-in-our-national-parks/

[6] John Benson’s post on Menadue’s blog - https://johnmenadue.com/john-benson-biodiversity-is-threatened-in-new-south-wales/  provides an interesting view of the former world class quality of the NSW national parks estate and its current decline.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration. Longer posts will be considered on topical subjects.

So this is what Abbott's tweaking at the edges looks like

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says that an election promise which will change the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to remove an obligation set out in Fair Work legislation is not changing the Fair Work Act, so he wasn't lying to the Australian people 5 days ago when he said "an incoming Coalition government would not seek to change the Fair Work Act at least for the three years of the next term of Parliament."
Today's effort was a clumsy sophism; "This is a savings measure and it will be achieved by amending the electoral act. It does not require any change to the Fair Work Act."
This is how one section of the Fair Work Act would probably read under an Abbott Government.
Looks mighty like change to me!

Fair Work Act 2009

Subdivision F—Liability for costs of protected action ballot

464 Costs of protected action ballot conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission

(1) This section applies if the protected action ballot agent for a protected action ballot is the Australian Electoral Commission.

(2) The Commonwealth is liable for the costs incurred by the Australian Electoral Commission in relation to the protected action ballot, whether or not the ballot is completed. [superseded]

(3) However, except as provided by regulations made for the purposes of subsection 466(1), the Commonwealth is not liable for any costs incurred by the Australian Electoral Commission in relation to legal challenges to matters connected with the protected action ballot. [superseded]

UPDAAATE!
I see that someone in the blogosphere has begun to put about the story that Tones was only talking about general union elections and not protected ballots so that didn't involve changing Fair Work law at all.
But if one goes to the AEC website this pops up:
"Under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the Act), the AEC must conduct all elections for office in registered organisations unless an exemption has been granted by the Fair Work Australia. This includes all elections and amalgamation ballots for trade unions and employer organisations that are registered under the Act. These elections are usually conducted by means of postal voting, and a wide variety of electoral systems are used."
Yep, Tones is really out to change Fair Work law.

Clarence Valley councillors bite the bullet in order to save the local government area from threat of a state government-imposed administrator

Mayor: Jim Simmons    

A/General Manager: Ashley Lindsay                                                                                                                           

LOCKED BAG 23 GRAFTON NSW 2460

Telephone: (02) 6643 0200

Fax: (02) 6642 7647

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 19, 2017

Making the Clarence Valley Council financially sustainable

CLARENCE Valley Council has voted to introduce a range of measures to improve its long-term financial position and help it meet the NSW Government’s Fit for the Future benchmarks.

The measures include applying for a special rates variation of 8% each year for three years, including an estimated rate pegged limit of 2%. The cumulative impact would be a rise in the  general rate of 25.9%, which would be retained permanently in council’s rate base. Council will also implement a host of savings measures totalling more than $8 million over four years.

Acting general manager, Ashley Lindsay, said a special rates variation, if approved, would raise an additional $7.08 million over three years.

“These measures will improve our financial position by more than $15 million over four years,” he said.

“None of this will be easy. No-one wants to pay more rates and we don’t want to charge them, but the harsh reality is the only alternative to a special rates variation is deep cuts to, or the elimination of, many of the services council provides and the community expects.

“We have been told by the Office of Local Government we need to have a balanced operating result by 2021.

“The cost-cutting measures we will introduce result in the loss of the equivalent of 24.5 full time staff positions, cuts to a range of services and better cost recovery on others. We have done everything possible to keep rate rises to a minimum.”

At the council meeting on Tuesday night, Cr Andrew Baker said that in 2012 the NSW Government’s TCorp identified the need for council to make efficiency savings and introduce a special rates variation.

He said that since then he and fellow councillors had tried to find ways to make the council financially sustainable without the need for a rates variation.

“I’m certain that each councillor that is here today was elected with an ambition to not increase the rates, to not cut services, to not cut employment, to not reduce facilities and amenities, to not increase debt and to provide responsible governance,” he said.

“Council has individually and collectively examined, debated, challenged and examined again every suggestion in every possible way to deliver on those noble aspirations of no rates increases, no service cuts, no employment reductions, no reduced facilities and amenities, and no more debt.

“While I can’t see how we can avoid a rates increase, I can say we have all made a big attempt to do just that.

“We’ve exhausted the discovery of all options and examined the possibilities and variations; we’ve called for and listened to expert advice, numerous reports and finance models. Some advice we have accepted and some we haven’t.

“We’ve looked for the best outcomes and least pain for our residents and ratepayers.”

Cr Peter Ellem said councillors had no choice but to put their hard hats on and make unpopular decisions to meet the State Government's Fit for The Future benchmarks to become financially sustainable by the end of the current four-year term, and indeed, for the decade thereafter.

“It is the shared responsibility of the nine duly-elected councillors, and not that of a financial controller or administrator, to adopt a draft package of job cuts, to be made in full consultation with the United Services Union, efficiency savings, and regrettably rate increases, to be put up for community consultation,” he said.

Mr Lindsay said council would seek the views of the community before reaching a final decision on a special rates variation application and some of the efficiency measures, and would consider a report at its May meeting on a schedule for community engagement.

Release ends. 

UPDATE

The Daily Examiner, 20 April 2017:

A pre-election survey by The DEX pinned four councillors against the SRV and only two, Cr Debrah Novak and Cr Greg Clancy, remained true to their word……

Cr Toms said voting for the SRV was a hard pill to swallow.

"I made declarations that I wanted better financial management and I wouldn't support the SRV and I wouldn't support excessive rate increase," she said.

"But I've had to change that position.

"When I had that position, I truly meant it... but now I have a lot more information and after a full day with the Office of Local Government (I have changed my mind)."

Cr Toms said despite the community backlash, the councillors had to make the decision.

"It's easy to criticise, people think we do the wrong thing, but the reality is that the councillors make the best decisions they can," Cr Toms said.

"I did change my mind over the SRV and that was also a very difficult decision to make, but I have to make it and I do believe I didn't have a choice."

The adopted recommendation included a detailed report which outlined that from 2017/18 to 2019/20, the council would make $15,566,987, which is more than the council's total debt of $15,343,127. The rates rise is to be rolled out 8% each year over three years which will amount to an expected total of $7.8million in revenue to come from the SRV.

Seven of the nine councillors voted for the SRV recommendation.

It will go to community consultation at the May council meeting……..

Cr Peter Ellem said the council had no choice but to make the unpopular decision.

"I believe that it is the shared responsibility of the nine duly-elected councillors, and not that of a financial controller or administrator, to adopt a draft package of job cuts, to be made in full consultation with the United Services Union, efficiency savings, and regrettably rate increases, to be put up for community consultation," Cr Ellem said.

"As a new councillor I am wiser because we have demanded and recently received more detailed information on the operational side of things, and greater clarity from the Office of Local Government."

Cr Ellem said fixing the $15million "black hole" which the new council has inherited from a "clunky forced amalgamation" needed addressing.

"My personal preference would be for the SRV component of this suite of measures to be lower than the 8% per year, but when we consult with ratepayers and residents in coming months it will become clear that a lower SRV will mean deeper cuts to local jobs and valued, if not cherished, services," he said.

Echoes of the unfortunate term of a contentious general manager linger

On 22 May 2014 North Coast Voices posted mention of Clarence Valley Council's refusal to follow the Information Commissioner's recommendation to allow a staff member access to information in a report on his conduct (which found no corrupt conduct), when in February 2014 at Item 14.005/14 they unanimously agreed to change the wording of the existing April 2013 Privacy Management Plan so that it appears to significantly depart from the Model Plan supplied by the NSW Division of Local Government.

This week the NSW Court List contained mention of this case before the NSW Industrial Relations Commission on 3 May 2017:

Francis Jon Hallam v Clarence Valley Council

  

Yes, the allegedly destabilizing element may have been removed from Clarence Valley Council but the ripple effect flows on.