local government

The property development lobby, as readers of this site know well, constantly badgers government to raise migration levels in order to keep up demand for housing beyond that which would naturally occur without massive overseas migration.

The CFMEU has placed a green ban on a proposed site of an indoor sports stadium at McIver Reserve in Yarraville that will reduce the provision and access to open space for the local community.  McIver Reserve is a key community hub for recreation and leisure. The proposed reduction of open space in a council with already limited provision of open space shows a lack of regard to the views of local residents by Council.

SUBMISSION…..MELBOURNE’S FUTURE PLANNING FRAMEWORK REVIEW

MEG is grateful to have heard of this review from Clifford Hayes (MLC Southern Metropolitan Region and we are surprised that DELWP didn’t send notice of the Review directly to us. We are also grateful to Mary Drost, Convenor of Planning Backlash. Mary forwarded this to all the residents’ groups in the network.

In our opinion this document should be called “just more of the same” rather than a “review.”

State Government Planning Reforms

We did not notice a reference to the recent ‘reforms’ to Planning made by State Government in this document….the reforms to which there was no community consultation, indeed not even consultation with local councils. Certain members of staff were consulted and had to sign confidentiality agreements.’ Surely these so-called reforms form part of the planning framework in which they are to operate and yet DELWP does not even mention that the ‘reforms’ give the Minister “unprecedented’ power and seem to be aimed at providing CERTAINTY for developers so WHY are these new powers not mentioned in a “Planning Framework Review.?’

There was no ‘engagement with the community’ over these outrageous invasions of our rights.

Regionalisation…..formerly known as ‘decentralisation.’

For some years MEG has promoted the notion of ‘decentralising’ the State’s population.

Strategically directed, incentive driven decentralization has been our mantra. This does not mean just nominating towns such as Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo and having more transport between each of these centres to Melbourne. Doing this leaves Melbourne as the centre to which endless attention is paid. It means have a transport system that crisscrosses the State.

Big infrastructure plans should not just concentrate on what is proposed for Melbourne…such as that tunnel that has ground to a halt, a network of roads for Melbourne that, so far, has resulted in the destruction of so much green space, so many canopy trees that clean the air we breathe with the obvious effect of being a detriment to health. Combined with Local Councils’ efforts to FILL open space with STUFF this is a negative use of the ‘tax dollar.’

Big infrastructure plans should focus on building rail lines across the State linking regional centres with each other as well as with Melbourne, building tram lines in the regional cities, linking the regional cities with airports. This sort of thing is what regionalization is all about. If State Government made a real effort to be a government for the STATE and not just for Melbourne we could begin to see some hope of this city surviving.

Encouragement should be given to establishing manufacturing industries both in the regions and in Melbourne so that Victoria could become a centre for all of those things that are at present made in certain Asian countries.
Encouragement should be given to wealth accelerators. We cite the instance of the small company in W.A. that is experimenting with the notion of removing carbon from coal. The idea of offering incentives for manufacturing activities should be both city-based and region-based.

Environmental Issues.

We should mention first that the Green Wedges do not have sufficient protection and this is a matter that State Government should deal with immediately.

No planning scheme (or ‘framework’) can continue to promote the wanton destruction of thousands of trees and fob off the protesters with that old perennial….”we will plant double the number of saplings.” All forms of Government say this forgetting just for the moment the number of YEARS it takes for a tree to develop a canopy that will start absorbing pollution, provide shade, counter the ‘heat island’ effect. Stonnington Council is as guilty of doing this as is State Government.

The push by Government for dense high-rise developments is a deliberate act of vandalism which is whimsically called ‘progress.’

We can find no mention of ‘ventilation’ in any of DELWP’s document and surely this matter must be dealt with in the light of our experience with COVID.

We can find no mention of the ‘flammable cladding’ scandal in the Review of the framework for “Plan Melbourne 2050.” Another issue that does not rate a mention.

With Melbourne’s population slowly decreasing due to COVID and more and more workers opting to ‘work from home’ now is the time to encourage a decrease in numbers for the city rather than putting forward a framework to handle an increase. State Government should grasp this opportunity and set out for the State a framework of development with environmentally sustainable objectives rather than spending an enormous amount of time and effort on producing yet another lengthy document filled with what has become known as ‘weasel words.’

In the category of ‘weasel words’ come such terms as……..
‘engagement with the community’… emerging character…. making Melbourne marvellous….. integrated transport…,,.liveability…..,,sustainability & resilience.

We have heard them all SO OFTEN…. We have even been guilty of using one or two of them at times.

State Government Departments such as DELWP could lead the way by using a new vocabulary as it develops new ways of developing the STATE instead of just more of the same only FASTER.

The Zones

Initially the ‘zones’ provided the community with a degree of certainty. With the present Minister’s constant ‘watering down’ of the requirements of the zones such certainty is gradually being whittled away.
In the original legislation regarding ‘zones’ there was one glaring omission. There was, and is, no grading of Commercial Zones. It is all Commercial 1. A Small Neighbourhood Activity Centre can have the same level of development that is allowable in a Principal Activity Centre. This results in far too many anomalies and has resulted in
gross invasions of residential amenity in NRZ and heritage areas. This matter should be addressed.

Let us finish with an apt headline from The Age on October 12.2021
City’s new design mantra: Cut the ‘crap’

The Council motion is for Seaford Foreshore Activation - does that mean activation for development? Is it seen as an 'idle' asset - not useful or valuable as it is? It would seem so. As the proposal being put to Council is as follows

Why is this being done? The budget for this - just for the proposal - is $40,000. Why are Councillors initiating these sorts of projects when many people in Frankston are experiencing financial hardship? There is little doubt by economic commentators that we are entering a recession. Why are we spending money on this rather than looking to address the far more serious problems of homelessness, children going to school without breakfast and lunch?

Asking DELWP to remove protections from the Foreshore opens up major risks for the foreshore and is something that should be discussed with the community first - and only proceeded with if it has overwhelming support and even then only if other safeguards and protections are in place instead.

What is driving this and where does it come from? Certainly not the community, as requests by the Seaford Community committee to be involved in discussions were met with the following response:

This is a very concerning move by Councillors - I personally would be interested to know in what sense this proposal is representing the wishes of the community, and where on earth it came from. Is this just one Councillor's agenda? Is there a group of developers acting behind the scenes? Why has this suddenly emerged - above all the other pressing concerns of Council - as an item worthy of spending ratepayers precious money on?

The specific things that 'in-principle' approval would sought for from DELWP include:

""Seating, tables, sand friendly tiles/ paving or platform, lighting (including LED), a grand
rotunda, public art piece, BBQ and drinking fountain, large sun dial, bike racks,
connective pathways, view of the beach, outdoor shower and feet washing. "

Moreland Council rezones residential land as parkland for residents, but they have to pay dearly to get the land back off the development-mad state government. Still this is something that local councils should all be doing and they should collectively be placing pressure on the State Government to sell the land at non-market prices, or gift it. For some time the requirement that developers set aside parkland for each development has been commuted to paying into a fund so that council can reissue land as parkland more cheaply. Who knows where this money goes?

Cr. John Kavanagh of North West Ward, Moreland, writes that he is "thrilled to inform you that we have successful in purchasing the entire parcel of Outlook Drive land!!!"

"The section of the land that is currently zoned residential will be rezoned so that this land will be open space for ever!" He writes that he "called a Special Council Meeting last week where we resolved to increase our offer – this land has not come cheap!"

"I know that ‘success has many fathers and failure is an orphan’ and so many will claim success in this. I tell you as clearly as I can that the success is because of the efforts of [...] elected Councillors, our CEO (Nerina Di Lorenzo), Kelvin Thomson, Kaye Oddie, Peter Khalil and you the community more generally."

Wrong for State Government to gouge local ratepayers for this land

"As thrilled as I am," he writes, "I still think it is wrong that such a large sum of ratepayers money had to be used to buy land from another level of government. This has not been gifted in any way."

"Today was an important day as the Victorian Government went into ‘caretaker’ mode at 6 p.m. so this had to be completed prior to that or it would have waited till after the election. Council made it clear that if the deal was not done today it would be a key election issue."

Victoria Market, as we know it, is under threat. The City of Melbourne, along with the top end of town, has plans to reduce and gentrify our historic market, paying lip service only to its valued heritage and the important service it provides to the wider Melbourne community, in particular, its role in keeping food quality standards high, food prices down, while providing astounding diversity.

The Council’s intention is to:

sell off part of the market’s land for commercial development, road extension and other purposes
to build high-rise buildings at its immediate doorstep,creating tall walls and corridors around its perimeter
to shrink the market from 12 sheds to 5
to gentrify this historical market by cherry picking which traders will stay or go,
jeopardise &/or close small, family-run businesses by not renewing or extending leases beyond one year,
to create a gourmet food precinct and entertainment space.

In short the Council proposes to micro-manage a cultural change of the market, to change its size and shape and give itself free rein to make physical changes to its layout without further public consultation.

Dear Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. members and friends

Here is a message from the Friends of the Queen Victoria Market. (PPL VIC is a great supporter) "You are invited to a meeting which is about building a community campaign with market traders, its customers, the wider community and the NUW (National Union of Workers) to protect the Vic Market, its people and its history. See https://www.facebook.com/FriendsofQueenVictoriaMarket. where you will find the flier and good background on the issues. The Friends of QVM Facebook page is a community page and everyone who is interested is welcome."

Meeting details are:

Date & time: Wednesday 20 July at 10.30am
Venue: Victorian Trades Hall Council Chambers, Cnr Lygon and Victoria Streets, Carlton
Location: Melways ref: Map 2B F12, Trams along Victoria and Swanston Sts, Buses along Lygon & Swanston Streets
Contact: Mary-Lou Howie M 0401 811 893
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/FriendsofQueenVictoriaMarket

The message from Friends of QVM continues: Just in case you don’t follow the Friends of Queen Victoria Market Facebook page which I co- author and now has a huge following, the Vic Market traders and supporters are having a big meeting at Trades Hall this Wednesday at 10:30 am.

As you must be aware, the Vic Market, as we know it, is under threat. The City of Melbourne, along with the top end of town, has plans to reduce and gentrify our historic market, paying lip service only to its valued heritage and the important service it provides to the wider Melbourne community, in particular, its role in keeping food quality standards high, food prices down, while providing astounding diversity.

The Council’s intention is to:

sell off part of the market’s land for commercial development, road extension and other purposes
to build high-rise buildings at its immediate doorstep,creating tall walls and corridors around its perimeter
to shrink the market from 12 sheds to 5
to gentrify this historical market by cherry picking which traders will stay or go,
jeopardise &/or close small, family-run businesses by not renewing or extending leases beyond one year,
to create a gourmet food precinct and entertainment space.

In short the Council proposes to micro-manage a cultural change of the market, to change its size and shape and give itself free rein to make physical changes to its layout without further public consultation.

The Lord Mayor has said this is the largest project ever undertaken by the City of Melbourne and an implementation strategy is now in place, yet no comprehensive plans detailing what is to be implemented has ever been revealed to the public.

Friends of Queen Victoria Market have a healthy readership of around 2,000 - 5,000+ people who want the market to continue as a sustainable, functioning shopping space for all people in Melbourne. We support revitalisation of the market and believe in proper independent consultation that leads to appropriate change, always mindful of QVM’s history, heritage and importance to our community.

If you are available, I would love to see you at Trades Hall on Wednesday. Cheers, Mary-Lou Howie M: 0401 811 893

Circulated by Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.PO Box 197 Parkville 3052 Mobile 0408022408

The OpenAustralia Foundation, the charity that runs a more accessible Hansard, has made an announcement about the progress of its Planning Alerts service. This is a free and community commons service. It gives citizens some ability to keep up with what the developers and mum and dad subdividers are up to. This, in turn, will give ordinary citizens and residents more insight into the impact of population growth, more information to make political decisions, and more control over its rapid creep.

PlanningAlerts makes it easy to impact what happens to your local buildings, parks, streets, and infrastructure. Over the last 7 years almost 40,000 people have signed up for alerts and thousands of you have made official comments on development applications for everyone to see.

But there are more ways to impact what gets built and knocked down. There are people at the council whose job is to understand their community and advocate for people like you who care about it. These people are your local councillors and they work for you.

If you want to help shape how your community changes then these are great people to talk to. They can make sure you’re heard at council meetings, find and request information for you, help you organise locals around the issues that matter, and much more. These are powerful ways to have a direct impact—but working with your councillors hasn’t been part of PlanningAlerts … until now.

Start a conversation

You can now easily ask your local councillors about a development application you care about in PlanningAlerts. This is a new feature that we’ve worked hard to make as simple as possible for you.

People living in over 70 council areas around Australia will now see an option to write to their local councillors in PlanningAlerts. Since we switched this feature on, dozens of people have used it and councillors from across Australia have responded.

Lots of people do currently write to local councillors about planning, but these conversations all happen in private.

In PlanningAlerts the full exchange is public. You can share and discuss what is (or isn’t) said, and hold the people you’ve elected responsible for their action. Everyone can benefit from your questions and the work councillors do to respond. People who’ve never taken the step to make contact themselves can see how easy it is and how helpful councillors can be.

A handful of brilliant volunteers have collected councillors’ contact details for 70 of the 150 councils in PlanningAlerts (thank you Pip, Daniel and Katska!). Let us know if your council is missing and we’ll prioritise making this new feature available to you. If you’d like to help collect local councillor information, please contact us—we’d love your help to make this available to everyone.

Now it’s time to put your councillors to work for you through PlanningAlerts.

Thanks for your support

The PlanningAlerts Team,
OpenAustralia Foundation

–

OpenAustralia Foundation

Venue: Mulgrave Country Club, Saturday 14 November, 9.30am to 4pm. Join us and other ratepayer leaders to discuss about common core issues and how the LG Act and other associated laws, and the roles of ratepayer groups can be changed to fix today’s broken LG system for the better. The seminar will include free light lunch and feature inspirational speakers.

RVI Public Seminar : Reengineering Local Government

Ratepayers Victoria Incorporated (RVI) is pleased to know that the legacy culling and bludgeoning of ratepayers to pay excessive council rate increases is about to end. In Victoria, rates have increased to about 80% over the last ten years, almost double NSW's 42%. "On the 14 November, RVI is hosting a ratepayer seminar (themed Reengineering Local Government) in Mulgrave, Monash. During this seminar, RVI will reveal its reform strategy, potential partners and aim to recruit project teams. For the very first time, ratepayers can stop being the silenced and frustrated stakeholder. They can and will become the new high value adding and agile solution partners in the new and reformed local government system. Change has started. There is no way back now." Jack Davis, President.

CPI capped rates and improved efficiencies are not the only benefits arising from the Fair Go Rates policy:
• Ratepayers will have greater say and influence in their council's affairs, notably setting future rate directions and underlying budget expenditure priorities, and support for justifying capped rate variations.
• The arising chain effects will also bring about higher propensity of councils to increase their collaboration, accountability and transparency (CAT) performance, which can translate into increasing good governance in councils' annual and strategic budget planning and utilisation.
• More importantly, these CAT capabilities will also help to build sustainable TRUST between councils and ratepayers, a first time milestone-breaker in local government history.

It is natural that councils and their peak bodies are nervous of the perfect storm of change coming to disrupt their status quo. However, they do not have to be alone in their rate capping journey. They can choose to engage and partner with ratepayers to help them make rate capping work and embrace continuous learning and quality improvements.

Great change involves greater challenges. There will be mistakes made, but so what. Mistakes create lessons learnt that are necessary for enabling continuous improvements, which together with effective community collaboration, are critical success factors.

RVI is forging ahead its reform plan to build grass-root capacity to help fix the currently broken local government system. With committed support from the Local Government Minister, Local Government Victoria, Essential Services Commission and now the ratepayer community, what more can councils ask for? They are in the most favourable and well supported positions to make rate capping work. In a very viable future scenario, ratepayers and councils can become agile partners in ensuring the peace, order and good governance in every Victorian municipal district. The big question is will councils and their peak bodies come to the party?

On the 14 November, RVI is hosting a ratepayer seminar (themed Reengineering Local Government) in Mulgrave, Monash. During this seminar, RVI will reveal its reform strategy, potential partners and aim to recruit project teams. For the very first time, ratepayers can stop being the silenced and frustrated stakeholder. They can and will become the new high value adding and agile solution partners in the new and reformed local government system. Change has started. There is no way back now.

Jack Davis
President

Source: Ratepayers Victoria Inc (RVI) Media Release - 21 Oct 2015

The article below is about cost-shifting to local councils to cope with increasing demand for infrastructure and services. This is of course a reflection of population pressure. The councils once could limit the amount of new homes and development but their capacity to do this has been greatly eroded by state government. The state governments have also left councils with little option but to borrow and to gouge residents with higher rates to cater to ever increasing costs of population growth. Just as there seem to be no limits to population growth in Victoria, there are no limits to local rates in Victoria. The article below is an extract from Cardinia Ratepayers and Residents Assn Inc Newsletter.

There is a limit to tax charged under government legislation. There is no limit to Council rates that are charged at whatever level a Council decides upon in a financial period of up to four years. Federal taxes are calculated on income, sale of goods and service, stamp duty etc. Council rates are based on fluctuating property values and calculated on estimated necessary expenditure, not affordable expenditure. Somehow taxes have become merged with rates due to cost shifting from government onto local councils. Until ratepayers understand they are actually paying extra tax via council rates, requests for rates relief will fall on deaf ears because councils are delivering services and infrastructure beyond their financial capacity in order to comply with government policies of continuing growth and expansion.

The notion of “local government“ has been officially and politically perpetuated to legitimise the cost shifting carried out at state and federal level .

Government grants and financial handouts blur the reality of this situation. Ratepayers must look carefully at what they expect in return for taxes paid to government and what they receive in return for annually increasing rates paid to the local council. Rates and Taxes.

There is a limit to tax charged under government legislation. There is no limit to Council rates that are charged at whatever level a Council decides upon in a financial period of up to four years. Federal taxes are calculated on income, sale of goods and service, stamp duty etc. Council rates are based on fluctuating property values and calculated on estimated necessary expenditure, not affordable expenditure. Somehow taxes have become merged with rates due to cost shifting from government onto local councils. Until ratepayers understand they are actually paying extra tax via council rates, requests for rates relief will fall on deaf ears because councils are delivering services and infrastructure beyond their financial capacity in order to comply with government policies of continuing growth and expansion.

The notion of “local government“ has been officially and politically perpetuated to legitimise the cost shifting carried out at state and federal level .

Government grants and financial handouts blur the reality of this situation. Ratepayers must look carefully at what they expect in return for taxes paid to government and what they receive in return for annually increasing rates paid to the local council.

Original article at http://www.crra.org.au/news13/news1314.pdf

21 July 2014. Yarra City Council has voted unanimously to join Moreland Council in seeking a judicial review of the Minister for Planning’s approvals for the East West Link and the assessments committee’s recommendation to the Minister.

Mayor Cr Jackie Fristacky said that under the Local Government Act Yarra has an obligation to act in the best interests of its community, which is why Council is taking this important action.

“Yarra has long opposed the East West Link because of the absence of a transparent and viable business case and the devastating impact it would have on our local community, local heritage, inner city traffic and many other important aspects impacting liveability”, Cr Fristacky said.

The Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act provides for appeal against the Minister’s decision to the Supreme Court within 21 calendar days of the Minister’s decision. The deadline for lodging an appeal in the Supreme Court is today (21 July 2014).

On July 8, Councillors voted unanimously to reject the State Government’s decision to approve the East West Link contrary to substantial evidence and the many professional recommendations of the Assessment Panel.

Council's resolution:

“That Council:
• reaffirm the Council’s resolution dated 8 July 2014 which stated its firm opposition to the East West Link project;
• joins Moreland Council in seeking a judicial review of both the Minister's decision under section 77 of the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act and the Assessment Committee's recommendation to the Minister made on 30 May 2014, under section 73 of the Act;"

Media enquiries
Bernadette Collins
Acting Senior Communications Officer
9205 5042
[email protected]

#CEE3F6;line-height:120%;">All councils in Victoria have the ability and the authority to elect at least one local laws officer to represent an inspector, as defined in the “Prevention of cruelty to animals act” (POCTA) under section 18 defined as a “general inspector”, warranted and authorized by” the minister of the time”, to enforce the POCTA as such. All it takes is the stroke of a pen.

There are 79 councils/shires in the state of Victoria . Each has in their employ at least two local laws officers and, in the larger towns there are up to 14 local laws officers on staff. For instance, Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat, City of Casey (13),Sale, Bairnsdale, City of greater Shepparton and many many more all have at least 5.

It would be true to say that all councils in Victoria have the ability and the authority to elect at least one local laws officer to represent an inspector, as defined in the “Prevention of cruelty to animals act” under section 18 defined as a “general inspector”, warranted and authorized by” the minister of the time”, to enforce the POCTA as such.

All it takes is the stroke of a pen. So, if this was considered by council, Victoria would then have the luxury of an additional 150 + officers to work under POCTA and RSPCA would then have the assistance of all officers around this state and I am happy to inform all, at no expense to the state government. The duty of care and protection for all creatures would therefore not be the responsibility alone of a private charitable organisation(such as RSPCA) to enforce a government act of parliament.

Casey Council has 13 such officers authorised to enforce POCTA (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act), and other Councils should now follow this example. Casey Council have used the new “puppy farm laws” and was the first to bring about a prosecution under this new law, with great success.

If all councils allowed this to happen it would certainly help solve the animal welfare crisis that is occurring in this state. We have the redundancy of hundreds of DEPI personnel and RSPCA always “bemoaning” no recourses no man power, no money”. Well, wouldn’t the proposal that we have suggested be a great gift to animal welfare?

To think of over an extra 200 authorised inspectors “out there” helping animals. Who knows, we could possibly see the “emergency animal ambulance” starting up again. The RSPCA no longer services this. Animals might actually be physically rescued by these inspectors instead of private and volunteered personnel doing the work. Even - God forbid - an afterhours emergency cruelty “call-out service”, as cruelty surely doesn’t stop at 5 o’clock.

Barrie Tapp . I care!Do YOU?

#EDF5FA;line-height:120%;">Help needed, and it won’t take but a moment of your time. Here in Macedon Ranges Shire we have a terrible council. It thinks it can operate and make decisions in isolation of and without consulting its community, while making the community pay for its decisions. Recently Macedon Ranges council took this culture a step too far. It deliberately resolved (not once, but twice) to apply for funding for a conference centre (and other large-scale development) at Hanging Rock and to not consult the community on the development or funding.

Hanging Rock does not belong to Macedon Ranges’ council officers and 5 of 9 councillors! It is an international icon; it belongs to the people of Macedon Ranges, Victoria, and Australia. Yet our council has shut everyone out. It’s making big decisions on our behalf – and on yours – without us having a say. We want our council to know this is not acceptable, and to rethink its decision.

The first favour we ask of you is PLEASE, PLEASE SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION “HANGING ROCK FOR SALE – HAVE YOUR SAY” by going to
http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/hanging-rock-for-sale-have-your-say
This petition has been authored and started by local residents in the Hanging Rock area community. MRRA is supporting this initiative.

The second favour we ask is PLEASE, PLEASE SEND THIS EMAIL AROUND TO YOUR FRIENDS AND CONTACTS AND ASK THEM TO SIGN THE PETITION AS WELL.

Here’s what some people are saying:

“If you have visited the Rock at some stage in your life you know the beauty and mysteriousness of the area, if you have not visited the Rock please google it and you will see what I mean. I live near the Rock and drive past it every day to and from work and it never ceases to amaze me because I see the same view but it’s different. I implore you to sign this petition to put a stop to the suggested development around the area of the Rock; Landcare has spent 10 years building up the wildlife corridor here and as usual greedy people just want to tear the bush down and put in concrete. Once you have signed it please email this to all your friends so we can save a natural beauty so close to Melb for visitors.” Toni

“Development such as that being proposed by MRSC in an area protected by an environmental overlay is totally inappropriate. It goes against all that this Landcare group has been working towards over a 10 year period! The East paddock area was purchased to buffer the reserve at Hanging Rock - a haven for wild-life and city-weary folks. So please add your name to the petition Luke has prepared and send it [the link] to your friends.” Penny

As you can see, this awful decision affects many people and impacts many (irreplaceable) values.
Many thanks for your help.

Christine Pruneau,

This article contains links to a video of an amazing 2007 meeting at Rainbow Beach where the whole town came out against the development, which has now been terminated by a Court case. Predictably, but sadly, however, the people who lost the Rainbow Beach court case look now as if they are agitating for a political solution in the hope of being able to get what they wanted in another way and put lots of buildings on world heritage Inskip point. So, to keep what has been won, it will be necessary to consolidate that victory.

People who actively supported the Rainbow Beach court appeal enabled the activists fighting the case to bring the expert town-planner and economist into the appeal. These two areas of evidence were determinative to the decision. Without that expert evidence available to the court, the developer's expert views on these crucial matters would have stood alone.

People have been fighting this development since 2007 as this you-tube record of a town meeting on 3 May 2007 shows. I filmed the entire meeting but until just recently, the film was lost. There are several parts to this film, which I am currently publishing on you-tube. People who attended this meeting may be cheered and strengthened to see how strongly the community pulled together to preserve its natural environment. There is drama and comedy as well - worthy of a 'Seachange' series.

This task should have been undertaken by the Council but they failed miserably to properly acquit their duty to the community and to the planning scheme. It was down to the community to fund and to present that evidence. The community stood up to this task and has helped win an enormous victory.

Sadly though the developer and his professional entourage have not accepted the court's decision and the very substantial facts that support it. They are already in full swing agitating for a political 'solution' to this thoroughly evaluated and sensible result.

The public must keep making their voice heard

It is vital that the developer lobby is not the only voice heard.

Yes, it was stated that this court case would provide a final result, but that was prior to the recent election. Things are now not so cut and dried, but they are not all that difficult if we all do a little bit to keep the facts of the court decision in clear public view. The judgment makes a development outcome of any sort upon the RS2 site very difficult. Nonetheless, through lack of scrutiny, the Campbell Newman Liberal National Government could potentially do anything.

They need to be convinced that would be neither popular nor wise.

The court case was a technical crusade not a political one. Now though Rainbow Beach needs the force of numbers and widespread intelligent comment to keep the court result safe from harm.

How you can help

Please help by writing a bit, spreading information around and encouraging others to take an interest.

Start now with:

- letters to the Gympie Times (short and to the point just saying hurrah! or anything further you might like to add);
- comments posted to the news articles linked below (ASAP - before they become fish-wrap)
- others as they might appear and as you may find links,
- letters to key politicians
- attendance at key public meetings.

Meeting Wednesday June 19th 2013

For instance at 6pm on Wednesday June 19th at the Sports Recreation and Memorial Club.

If you are in Rainbow Beach next Wednesday at 6pm please go to this meeting, which is described in this news article (also linked below) and ensure that it is not a one-sided media stunt masquerading as a genuinely 'outraged' and disadvantaged community. Be there in numbers to say:
- the decision is a good one,
- it is based on the facts
- it does not disadvantage anyone but a few developers
- it accurately reflects the views of most local residents and visitors and comes as a great comfort and a breath of fresh factual air to blow away the BS sprayed about town by the developer.
- the business lobby should get on with local tourism business that will genuinely help everyone, and stop touting property speculation that would profit only a few.

Please let us know if you can get to this meeting. (For contacts go here.) Knowing that a good number of informed people will be there will help the confidence of all of those considering attending.

The meaning of the Court's decision

The Court's decision very clearly and strongly informs this position
The core of the decision can be most succinctly summarised as follows:

The planning scheme stipulates that Need and environmental impacts are determinative upon any development decision upon Lot 22 (the RS2 site).
The facts show there is no Need for the scale of development proposed.
The facts show that the site and surrounds support very significant environmental values and that these would be severely damaged by the proposed development.

Put another way this means:

Inskip has significant environmental values that are protected by law.
Rainbow Beach is an area of slow growth - hence quiet and relaxed, a respite from the urban pressures elsewhere and with ample land in and around the town to provide for natural growth pressure.

Very obviously these features provide the core ingredients for a successful and sustainable tourism plan that does not conflict with ecological values or with the values of residents seeking a quiet life. These features are the eggs from the proverbial golden goose.

Sadly the dummy spitters now agitating against the court decision are oblivious to this reality as they are blinded by the greed of their ambition. They would readily slaughter the golden goose in their pursuit.

Please see the links below for a view of this agitation.
Please help now to quell it as quickly as possible.
A planning process is a good idea but it needs to be based on the facts, which are now available in abundance thanks to the court procedure, and not on agitation and selfishness.

Current article links:

http://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/rainbow-beach-plan-call-fight-back-ron-dyne/1908293/

http://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/battered-businesses-need-rainbow-shores-inskip/1906857/

http://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/new-nightmare-for-developer/1907558/

http://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/environmental-judge-shoot-down-rainbow-shores-plan/1905273/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-14/qld-government-urged-to-save-15b-rainbow-beach-development/4753806

Role of debt in a fool's paradise

The world graph shows Australian private debt to be proportionately higher than that in the US, Financial sector debt to be significant and Govt debt to be relatively small. Why then is so-called excessive Government debt ALL we ever hear about from the media and the growls emanating from the political bear-pit? Are they just stupid or are they trying to hide or completely deny something?

Also of morbid interest is that the UK is an economic meltdown waiting to happen. Financial debt is running at 1000% of GDP. How can that astronomical amount possibly be bailed out when it implodes? Greece and Spain are flecks of dust compared to that one.

These give a snapshot of the extremity of the national and global debt situation. Very evidently it is the biggest elephant in the global lounge-room at the moment and will only get stinkier and more broadly destructive the longer that its overwhelming presence is ignored.

Australian debt related to housing

Australian debt related to housing represents a huge part of the costs of doing business and of living. The opposition has a lot to say about the cost of a carbon tax, but that cost would be imperceptible if governments and the growth lobby stopped pushing up land and housing costs by importing whole towns worth of people into this country.

We are looking at long-term loss of spending capacity

There is a pressing need for governance to recognise the game-changing transition that is now irreversibly underway so that the best outcomes can be drawn within the very unfamiliar and difficult economic rules of this new game. We have now moved from a long build-up period of enormous credit spending and debt accumulation into a long period of debt de-leveraging and consequent loss of spending capacity. The loss will hit Individuals and thus the retail economy, and hit all levels of government and thus the entire public spending program. Public debt and Government financial capacity will be hit even harder if governments continue to bail-out wealthy financial institutions for their speculative losses.

Unfortunately a number of reasons make such bail-outs likely to occur, and particularly so if the ordinary person remains unaware of the nature of this big structural change that is underway. Its impacts will reach deeply across our entire socio-economic framework. It effectively destroys the growth model that has been employed since World War Two.

Local councillors need to educate themselves beyond State ideological feed

Local Councillors need to become aware of this so that they can pull back from a futile reliance upon property development and associated tourism to drive Shire economy. I know most do not have the mental faculty or will to do so, however some might if the material is presented in the right way. This need is especially urgent in the context of the impending construction a new Strategic Town Plan.

Greg Wood is a leader in the fight to stop inappropriate development at Rainbow Beach Queensland in a World Heritage area.http://www.inskip.org/index.html

You've got to see this video. Salt and cronies rattling on at an industry talk-fest.
Warning: Likely to cause anger, nausea or both. An even bigger chance of dying laughing at these unselfconcious antics of the Property and Growth Lobby.
http://australianpropertyforum.com/topic/9032052/1/

The powerpoint slides and Salt monologue give way to footage of Co-conspirators... well conspiring.
One of those present is the CEO of Parramatta Council. All those on-stage seemed completely naive to the notion of democracy or the public interest. This was a 2011 talkfest by KPMG and the Property Council of Australia which has been sitting in our draft articles for some time, but age has not tarnished it.

Debating them would be like debating the three stooges - which is perhaps why they never debate any of the counter-growth lobby.

They seem utterly clueless regarding the nature of their opposition.

There are comments below the video on the above site from people who seem amazed at these antics. Most of candobetter.net's readers would not be amazed, but amused to see what we knew to be true actually played out on stage. There are also comments about some nasty sock-puppets who seem to be located in Prosper Australia. One of them is noted to attack people who want to stop undemocratic population growth in Australia. The same guy seems to get around a lot - from the Refugee Alliance and their friends in Right to Life, amongst shouter-downs in the Greens, the Socialist Alliance and even in Bicycles Victoria. (What do all these organisations have in common that could interest him? - Political turf.)

This page from another site also carries the same video and discusses the issue of online property shills and astroturfing.

http://www.differenthere.com/2011/08/on-internet-nobody-knows-youre-dog-or.html

This page, also from the site above, is also very interesting. It discusses the commercial collapse of The Block'

http://www.differenthere.com/2011/08/real-estate-in-crisis-block-auction.html

Here's an example of a comment posted after watching this video:

"This is very disturbing.

KPMG's Bernard Salt is advocating the creation of groups of paid shills and spruikers, backed by big business and the property industry, to 'counter the negativity' by posting on opinion pages of newspapers, forums, social media, twitter and the blogosphere. He wants these groups to take on the 'doomsayers' by seeking out and 'balancing extreme views'. He says individuals can't do it but there are ways to fund groups to do it.

His guests say the property council used to do this a lot to promote the property industry but vacated that space in recent years and he recommends they return with broad campaigns at the PR level to fight negative sentiment in the property market.

It makes you wonder whether they've already been successful in doing this, and the bulls and spruikers on forums like this one are bankrolled by the real estate industry and big business to sow seeds of uncertainty and doubt among the dominant (and correct IMO) bearish viewpoint. Would it surprise you if our one-eyed permabulls and their socks are puppets of the propaganda arm of the real estate industry, here to manipulate public opinion and drown out reality? Who to trust?"

Victoria's Mornington Peninsula Shire wants to build the largest building project they have ever undertaken on foreshore public reserve land at Rosebud. The proposed complex would be 50 times larger than a recently condemned pool and needs parking for 200 vehicles. Why change something as perfect as Rosebud? Is the council mad?

No crocodiles at Rosebud

Marine crocodiles and box jellyfish made it too dangerous to swim on Cairns foreshore in Northern Australia, so the construction of a public 4 hectare built lagoon made some sense. Why, however, would you try to build something like this on the Rosebud foreshore? Rosebud foreshore is like a giant, safe lagoon already.

In fact, the coastline around Port Philip Bay, Australia, is so scenic, safe, and accessible that most normal people in the world would look at it and think that it was perfect - but not some of the people in the local council.

Dr Alan Nelsen, Secretary, of Mornington Peninsula Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association, Inc.[2] expresses local concern and amazement at this strangely inappropriate project.

Concern for Victoria’s Bays and Coastal Foreshores

"All Victorians should be pleased with the rejection by the government’s Department of Sustainability and Environment’s refusal to sell Port Phillip Bay foreshore public land for an illegally built private pool in Mt Eliza. The Mornington Peninsula Shire Council applauded the decision. [1]

However, what is of greater concern to all Victorians is that the executive of the very same council and a local councillor are lobbying the government to construct its own aquatic/leisure complex, “the largest building project undertaken by the Mornington Peninsula (shire)” on the same bay foreshore which is public reserve land at Rosebud. The proposed complex is 50 times larger than the condemned pool and requires a car park for 200 vehicles.

Hypocrisy or incompetence? The shire also refuses to recognise that its low-lying site is likely to become one of the worst affected by inundation from sea level rise on the bay foreshore. Perhaps users will be able to swim out to the complex.

A further embarrassment is that the proposal to use public open space is inconsistent with the recent comment by the government’s Minister for Planning who said he would be making new parks for Melbourne.

The bay foreshore belongs to all Victorians and must not be allowed to be squandered by a shire executive and local councillor to build a monument to themselves, dubbed by many as “Palace de Versailles by the sea”."

Notes

[1] The Sunday Age, October 9, 2011.

[2] Dr Alan Nelsen, Secretary, of Mornington Peninsula Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association, Inc.
PO Box 4087, Rosebud Vic
Email: alanne[AT]ihug.com.au

Watch the trailer here

Mary Drost of Planning Backlash writes: "I saw the movie this afternoon in Elsternwick. A full house and rave comments. It is brilliant and will inspire you to never give up. Really everyone should see it, and that includes Councillors and MPs. It shows what people power can do!"

About 'The Triangle Wars'

A celebrity photographer. An eccentric politician. A high-powered property developer. An epic battle to decide the fate of a St Kilda parking lot.

In May 2007 the Port Phillip City Council unveiled plans for a large-scale commercial development on the St Kilda foreshore - a $400 million mega mall that would comprise 180 shops, a hotel, a supermarket, eight cinemas, a gallery and five bars. Local residents were outraged, and with developers preparing to push the project through council, the community galvanised to stop it going ahead.

A compelling story of democracy in action, truth proves stranger than fiction as accusations of betrayal, deceit and corruption abound. Filmed over three years, The Triangle Wars captures the fascinating battle between an outraged community, an intractable local government apparatus and a powerful development consortium, as heads roll and careers are destroyed.

Directed by local residents Rosie Jones and produced by Lizzette Atkins and Peter George for Circe Films.

Where to see it

'The Triangle Wars' in cinemas - starts Thursday for a short time only this Thursday 6th October at six cinemas in Victoria, and in Hobart and Narooma, NSW. It is important for Australian democracy and the war against the growth lobby and over population to attend the first few screenings.

It's really important to get people there straight away - if we don't, our season will be cut very short. If word of mouth in Melbourne is favorable, the film will travel to cinemas around Australia, and possibly the world, so please spread the world.

Jill Quirk of Sustainable Population Australia writes, "I agree with Mary Drost about this film. It is a wonderful souvenir of the events and the characters."

#TriangleTimes">Screening details

Nova, Carlton Daily: 11:25AM, 3:20PM, 7:05PM
The Classic, Elsternwick Mon, Tue, Wed: 12:30PM, 4:30PM, 8:30PM
The Cameo, Belgrave Mon, Tue, Wed: 2:30PM, 6:40PM

How to screen The Triangle Wars in your community

If you would like to screen THE TRIANGLE WARS in your community, please get in touch to see how easy it can be.
Film hire is available to community groups for a discounted rate. Phone (07) 3262 2009 or email [email protected] for details. Screen THE TRIANGLE WARS in your community to raise debate on your local development issues or as a fundraiser event. Get inspired!

The Australian land tax system creates hot treeless slums. In Queensland, for instance, the Brisbane City Council charges landowners according to the assessed market value of their land. If the Council land-zoning changes to allow medium or high density housing on land previously zoned only for detached homes, then the commercial value of that land goes up as each block will then be able to hold several dwellings instead of one. Although living conditions then become cramped and the quality of life for residents of higher density declines in comparison with that of residents of detached single dwellings, the total financial value of the medium density dwellings inevitably exceeds that of a single residence on the same land.

Rich aspire now to what working class had 40 years ago

The houses and gardens in this gentrified, expensive area of Brisbane, very close to the CBD, used to belong to working class families, who grew vegetables in their back yards and whose children played in the rainforest in the valley between the houses. Those were the 'bad' old days. Nowadays, of course, ordinary people cannot hope to purchase in this area, and many will never own a home, let alone a home with a garden and a rainforest out back, 20 minutes walk from the Brisbane GPO.

Greed or necessity

But apparently even the current residents of this last green valley in inner Brisbane are going to lose the rainforest out back too, because the opportunity to make a quid by developing every square inch causes neighbours to cave in to greed, or necessity, one by one. As the land values go up, so do rates. And down come the trees...

Holding out

One man has held out now since the late sixties to the three blocks of land adjacent to a fourth with the house where he raised his children, simply because, as an architect, he can see that the forest is of more intrinsic value than the cash-value of the land. He can no longer afford to pay the rates, however, and so is faced with the option of going into debt to build on the property or going into debt to keep the property for nature.

Land-taxes and overpopulation doom nature and raise costs

Has government-engineered population growth in Brisbane made every square inch of this area too expensive to leave unpaved or is there some way out?

In June 2010, it was "reported" on ninesn.com that Brisbane home owners were to be slugged with a 5.04% increase in their council rates (based upon the the fact that the increase would drive up the rates on average by $80 (presumably per year)).

This hike shows how ordinary Brisbane home-owners and mortgagees are being made to pay the price of the mismanagement of our economy by governments at the Federal state and local, particularly due the encouragement of population growth by those governments.

Land-tax system creates slums

The Brisbane City Council charges landowners according to the assessed market value of their land. If the Council land-zoning changes to allow medium or high density housing on land previously zoned only for detached homes, then the commercial value of that land goes up as each block will then be able to hold several dwellings instead of one. Although living conditions then become cramped and the quality of life for residents of higher density declines in comparison with that of residents of detached single dwellings, the total financial value of the medium density dwellings inevitably exceeds that of a single residence on the same land.

People don't like what is happening

In spite of the profits that can be made, many residents choose to forego such profits and continue to live in single detached dwellings. They may do so in order to preserve the suburban lifestyle to which they have become accustomed and to avoid the disruption to their own lives entailed in selling their own residence and moving further away from the centre of the city, work and amenities in order to find a house similar to the one they have sold.

What can be lost

The google-earth map (at least five years old, judging by the current landscape features not shown) of the suburb near the centre of Brisbane (alluded to at the beginning of this article) shows what else can be lost by the rezoning of inner city suburbs. In this photo is a precious patch of suburban rainforest, a thing of utmost rarity in Brisbane, which is currently being gnawed away by subdivision. As mentioned in the introduction, in the past, much of the rainforest at the back of these homes was an effective commons in which local children played. The rainforest also continues to perform a number of valuable ecological services, and to provide shelter and food for wildlife. Without this patch of forest, and other fragments, Brisbane would be a far less pleasant place to live.

Removal of trees causes flooding

Rain, which falls on suburban rainforest, is retained in the soils, bushes and trees. Rain which which falls on rooftops, driveways, concrete footpaths, roadways and mowed lawns, is quickly driven by gravity into lower parts of the city. Towns in which vegetated land has been replaced with housing - particularly high-density housing - are more prone to flooding. A very striking example is the town of Toowoomba, 140 km to the west of Brisbane. over decades, vegetated land on the higher ground surrounding Toowoomba's centre has been cleared and covered with housing. Now all but the lightest of showers cause the centre of Toowoomba to become flooded.

Removal of trees causes climate warming

Those sought-after timber Brisbaner houses with their ornate wooden trimmings and lattice-work verandahs now stand where vast forests once stood. People often don't realise that the wood for those houses came from the forests they replaced. As more and more of Brisbane has been changed from living green into a concrete jungle, it's local climate has become hotter and less pleasant. The vegetation in the photo almost certainly keeps the locals cooler and Brisbane as a whole more healthy. Forested suburban settings are immensely desirable and raise the value of the housing nearby as well as benefiting the wider environment.

Environmentally responsible penalised

Yet landowners who try to preserve vegetation, including rainforest, on their land have been penalised, rather than being rewarded for the service their decision provide to Brisbane. The City Council forces them to pay rates on assessed land values that those environmentally sensitive landholders could only possibly gain from if they were to choose to destroy the vegetation on their land with subdivision and to profit

from medium density housing construction.

The google-earth map photo is about five years old. A considerable amount of urban rainforest has been lost in that time as a result of medium density housing construction. Vegetation known to have been lost has been indicated by red lines on the map. In addition, the rainforest has been encroached upon by extensions of housing, often to construct sub-units down the valley.

If some residents are willing to profit from the destruction of their natural environment, at least those who won't should not be penalised for doing so. Rather than hitting environmentally generous landowners with rate increases, the City Council should discount their rates (and do so retrospectively) for the environmental services they have protected on their land which have benefited the other residents of Brisbane and the native possums, flying foxes, and many beautiful birds, which depend on such fragments of rainforest.

Hobson's choice?

I know personally that the landowner with the three forested unbuilt blocks now sees little choice but to sell his land because the rates are so high. If he reluctantly goes ahead and the remnant rainforest is destroyed it will be more than a loss of natural beauty for Brisbane residents. Almost certainly the loss of the ecological services will make Brisbane a hotter and uglier. It will certainly not improve it. Those who can afford to will most likely draw on more electrical power to make their homes cool at least on the inside.

NIMBYs needed now

The poorer classes who once lived unpretentiously but well in this very suburb with far more space than people now do, will swelter in miserable high-density subdivisions and in the treeless outer suburbs. Many will certainly not be able to afford the option of air-conditioning because, as human population has increased and the trees have been destroyed, the heat has increased and so has the cost of housing and of power.

This kind of thing is happening all over Australia.

Brisbane and Australia need more NIMBYs.

#frogs" id="frogs">

Appendix: the decline of amphibians in urban Australia

(This brief appendix has been extracted from nimby's comment Frogs on the decline too of 6 Jan 11.)

Dr Andrew Hamer, based at the University of Melbourne, stressing that reptile and frog habitats need be conserved in residential areas by keeping them as natural as possible, even if they are only small areas. "Our research suggests that many reptile and frog species have been negatively affected by urbanization,” says Dr Hamer. With

higher density living

, more concrete drains rather than rivers and creeks, and less back yards and green wedges, our amphibians and reptile have little chance of being protected.

For background to this public protest see "Save Williamstown requests help..."

Help requested by Williamstown Saturday 10th at 1pm

Save Williamstown Meeting and Workshop at Seaworks Tavern this Saturday 10 April at 1pm

Seaworks is on Nelson Place, parking entry on Ann St.

This is an important meeting.

See below video from 29 March, which gives the story up to the most recent outrages:

Arbitrary rezoning tramples democracy

The Minister, Justin Madden, has already rezoned the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site residential, preventing any mixed use which could have benefited the community and protected the shipyards. Hobsons Bay Council has been excluded from the rezoning decision and was not informed until minutes before the Minister's press release on 26th March. The rezone was on the request of the developer, Nelson Place Village Pty Ltd with no reference to our council or the community or the industrial stakeholders.

The council had NOT delayed the decision on the development application, the developer had only submitted the application in August 2009 and the Council considered it in December 2009.

The Minister has set up an advisory committee to report to him on what is suitable development criteria for the site BUT individuals in the community will not be permitted to make submissions to the Minister's committee. The committee's report is to be provided within 8 weeks of submissions closing.

see: http://www.savewilliamstown.net/Save_Williamstown/NEWS/Entries/2010/4/8_Draft_Terms_of_Reference_for_the_Ministers_Advisory_Committee.html

Community locked out of consultations - outsider developers indulged

The community needs to be aware that the Minister's draft Terms of Reference for his advisory committee do not include third party responses or open community consultation. Only community based groups such as Save Williamstown, WNSRA and POW are to be invited to submit to the Minister's advisory committee. Therefore attending Save Williamstown meetings will be your opportunity to tell Minister Madden what our community believes is appropriate development.

Issues such as:

Heritage,

Impact on Williamstown jobs,

Heights and

Impact on Infastructure of an increasing Williamstown population

will be discussed in preparation for the Save Williamstown submission.

Please make sure that everyone who wants to be on our emailing list gives us a contact email address. Lists will be available at the meeting. People not at the meeting who needs to add their name to the list should send an email to [email protected].
If you know people to telephone, please establish telephone trees to let as many people know what is happening.
Funds will also be needed for letterboxing.
If you have skills or time please also let us know on the lists at the meeting or by email to [email protected].

AND FOR THOSE WHO THINK RESIDENTIAL ZONING IS OKAY AS LONG AS THE HERITAGE OVERLAY AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS APPLY.. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE DEVELOPER STILL WANTS AT LEAST 46.5 METRE TOWERS (OR UP TO 17 STOREYS) AS SHOWN IN DESIGN OPTION 5.

THE DEVELOPERS ARE NOT MEMBERS OF OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY AND THEY ARE SEEKING WHATEVER MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND PROFIT THEY CAN OBTAIN OUT OF THIS SITE.

AND THIS WILL BE A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS.

Thanks,

Save Williamstown

--

Save Williamstown Working Group
Website: http://www.savewilliamstown.net
Email (General): info[AT]savewilliamstown.net
Planning and Design Issues: [email protected]
Communications and Media Issues: [email protected]
Legal Issues: legal[AT]savewilliamstown.net
Strategy Issues: strategy1[AT]savewilliamstown.net

At the last council meeting Cr. Katie Milne, heroine of environmentally-minded local residents, moved a raft of motions to protect koalas, which were unanimously adopted. They were:-

1. The Recovery of the Tweed Coast Koalas is to be classed as an urgent and very high priority.

2. A review of Council’s Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) be undertaken to include identified Koala habitat:-

a) Currently identified Koala habitat to be included in the TPO as a matter of urgency.
b) Further identified Koala habitat to be included as a high priority as information becomes available.
c) Council holds a workshop on the Tree Preservation orders to facilitate further preservation of native bushland and urban vegetation, especially landscape values and waterways corridors.

4. Council develops a marketing campaign to educate and enlist the assistance of the community in the preservation and enhancement of Koala populations.

5. Where Koala habitat or corridors occur on private property, Council to inform landholders and provide appropriate strategies to preserve and enhance these habitats and linkages.

6. Council develops an interim Koala Recovery Action Plan, as a matter or urgency, until a Koala Management Plan is able to be funded and implemented, this plan to include addressing ameliorative measures to known Koala problem hotspots such as Clothier's Creek Road and South Tweed.

7. Council brings forward a report on appropriate incentives that could be provided for Private Landholders to enhance Koala habitat and corridors.

8. Council writes to the Minister for the Environment and the local State Members with a request that:

a. The SEPP 44 Koala legislation be reviewed, as a matter of urgency to provide stronger protection for koalas, and
b. Additional identified tree species utilised by Tweed Coast Koala populations that are not listed in the SEPP 44 for Koalas be included as a matter of urgency.

9. The Tweed Link to be utilised as a medium to promote this marketing campaign to the community.

Unfortunately, Council did not vote to establish a Fund for Koala Conservation in the Tweed which would have included a donation tin (at front counters of Council offices, libraries, holiday parks and other approopriate Council places) and establishing a fund with annual financial targets promoted in the Tweed Link. How on earth will they be able fund the development of a marketing plan or campaign let alone a Koala Management Plan without funding???

Tweed Shire Council has already shown in the 2009 Management Plan not a single penny is to be allocated to the Koala Recovery Plan while they are happy to spend $150,000 on new carpets for the auditorium and $50,000 for security cameras in Main St and so on.

It leads one to ponder just how serious this Council is especially in light of the following letter written by the CEO of Australian Koala Foundation to Qld Premier Anna Bligh:

*********

Dear Premier,

On behalf of the Australian Koala Foundation, I am writing to advise that we have lodged a nomination to list the Koala Coast koala population as Endangered under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. The nomination proves this population is eligible for listing under this legislation. I also wish to advise that the AKF has nominated this population as Critically Endangered under the Federal Government's EPBC Act and await the Federal Minister's decision.

You are to be chastised. This action should have been your Government's responsibility given your public admission of its endangered status. It is Queensland's faunal emblem, for goodness sake.

For the purposes of both the EPBC Act and the Nature Conservation Act, a "geographically separate population of any animal or plant" is eligible for listing. The Koala Coast area is delineated by Manly Road and Lota Creek to the north, the Gateway and Pacific Motorways to the west, Logan River to the south, and Moreton Bay to the east. These barriers effectively isolate the resident koala population as a geographically disjunct population. Genetic analysis has confirmed this geographic isolation; koalas from the Koala Coast region are genetically distinct from all other regions in South East Queensland.

A recent report prepared by one of your Departments has concluded that koalas within the Koala Coast have declined by 51% since 2006, and by 64% in the 10 years since the original 1996-1999 surveys. These declines are generally the result of high levels of anthropogenic mortality and habitat loss. There is no scientific evidence these declines have been caused by drought even though you have made a public comment to the contrary. As such, the Koala Coast population resoundingly fulfils the requirements for listing as an endangered species under the Nature Conservation Act.

The AKF believes that listing the Koala Coast koala population as `endangered' under the Nature Conservation Act will highlight the policy failures of the past 15 years, and increase community awareness of the plight of the koala in South East Queensland, encouraging further community participation in the recovery of this important population. I am disappointed that the Department of Environment and Resource Management has not already undertaken to review the status of this population under the NCA, given that the population declines have been observed and reported by departmental staff.

I would also like to take this opportunity to raise our concerns with the current process for listing species under the Nature Conservation Act. As you are no doubt aware, there appears to have been a number of significant changes to the nomination and listing process since the previous AKF nomination which was successful in listing the SEQ koala population as vulnerable under the NCA in 2003. Disturbingly, the EPA website currently has no information to guide those wishing to nominate a species for listing. In addition, the pro-forma nomination form on the EPA website has significant flaws, and does not appear to have been updated since 2007. The nomination form specifically requests anyone submitting a nomination to provide details of their publications and scientific qualifications - I would suggest this is designed to intimidate the average citizen from nominating any species for listing. Indeed I will suggest that it would be impossible for a member of the public to complete this process.

I further believe that the independence of the listing process has been compromised, as the nomination is now judged by a "technical group" many of whom are department employees, rather than by a committee of independent scientific experts as in previous years.

In short, Premier the process is flawed from beginning to end and indeed I believe I can predict the outcome both from Queensland and the Federal Government because of the perceived implications you fear from developer backlash.

Why you cannot initiate Koala Beach style developments throughout South East Queensland is just beyond me, but it is clear the development industry in Queensland is just "business as usual" to the citizen's and the koala's detriment.

A timely assessment of this nomination is requested.

Yours faithfully,
Deborah Tabart OAM
Chief Executive Officer

******************
It was then reported in the media at www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/premier-chastised-over-looming-koala-extinction-20090722-dtf6.html

Premier chastised over looming koala extinction
Brisbane Times - Tony Moore
July 23, 2009 - 5:10AMSouth-East Queensland's urban koala population could be wiped out within two years, according to conservationists.

State Government figures released in May showed numbers of the iconic species in the Redland and Logan areas halved from 4611 in 2006 to 2279 last year.

The Australian Koala Foundation has accused Premier Anna Bligh of driving South-East Queensland's population towards extinction. The organisation has now gone over her head, writing to Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett nominating the region's koalas as a "critically-endangered" population.

In a letter to Ms Bligh, AKF executive director Deborah Tabart harshly criticised the Premier for failing to protect the animals and nominate them for extra protection.

"This action should have been your Government's responsibility given your public admission of its endangered status," the letter read.

"It is Queensland's faunal emblem, for goodness' sake."

Ms Tabart told brisbanetimes.com.au the extinction of the animals on the 'Koala Coast' - which includes Redlands, Logan and Brisbane - was now inevitable.

"It's been on [former premiers Wayne] Goss' watch, on [Peter] Beattie's watch and now on Bligh's watch," she said.

Queensland Climate Change and Sustainability Minister Kate Jones yesterday said she understood the need to act quickly and that new state planning policy would soon be implemented to help protect koalas.

She said better koala habitat mapping, which would be available within weeks, would give councils the ability to veto development on habitat land, which was was more valuable than changing their protection status.

"That mapping will give councils the ability to identify koala habitat and ask developers to provide an offset parcel of koala habitat land if they want the development to go ahead," Ms Jones said. She said she had received the Australian Koala Foundation's nomination to increase Queensland's protection of koalas.

"We will consider its listing, but it will be done on a South-East Queensland basis, not just on the Koala Coast," Ms Jones said.

"We are prepared to change its categorisation once the koala habitat mapping is completed."

Redland mayor Melva Hobson last month said the State Government's plans had failed, and 1000 koalas were now killed each year. She told brisbanetimes.com.au last night there was too much focus on urban growth, rather than saving koalas.

"To me the balance at the moment should be in favour of koalas, not in favour of people," she said.

"I can't find words to express what (extinction of koalas) would be like and how anybody could allow that to happen. We need to pull out all stops to recover this iconic species."

A population of fewer than 500 koalas cannot sustain itself, experts say.

*******

However, in December 2008 the Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation made a raft of protection provisions to the save the koala and established a task force. Yet in spite of them, the koala populations in Redland City dropped by 50% in the last year (mainly due to State authorised clearing of eucalypt trees used by koalas in order to clear land for a new school). http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/qld/content/2006/s2609890.htm

Can we rely on State governments to protect local species when Australia's track record for native extinctions is the worst in the world? Hardly.

The deplorable apathy, ignorance and arrogance filters down from the top to the bottom. Cr Dot Holdom at the same council meeting where Cr Katie Milne's koala motions were carried (which are barely a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done urgently) in response to Cr Milne's impassioned plea to the other councillors to raise their consciousness about the plight of koalas said that she didn't need her consciousness to be raised on this issue and proceeded to not vote for koalas to be in urgent need of protection in Tweed Shire!

I have heard it said by locals that certain business members on the steering committee of Tweed Tourism hold the view that it would make no difference to Tweed Tourism if there were no koalas left and that people would still come to see the topography and flora. But do people really think that flora can exist without fauna? Are they so ignorant about biodiversity to think that we can live in a totally mechanised, sterile world with mountains, sun, rivers and earth without animals to fertilise, aerate, regenerate grasses with seed dispersal, insect control and other integral services required for a healthy ecosystem?

If so, such bureaucrats are urgently in need of educating before they make any decisions that will affect our environment! Decisions such as Repco Rally which will be devastating for not only the future of koalas but all the current endangered/at risk species in Tweed Shire.

Why do they think we are screaming so loud to stop the Repco car crash Rally? Because we would rather spend our time, money and energy holding placards in the street and beating drums for peace for months on end, tossing sleeplessly in our beds at night, than having a life? No! Because WE care about our native animals and ecosystems and will do everything in our power to protect them, in spite of NSW state government's determination to make a blasphemy of environmental protection.

Visit sites.google.com/site/norallygroup.

The area proposed for intensive suburban development directly abuts World Heritage Ramsar Wetlands and close to World Heritage Fraser Island

Craig Warhurst writes in the Gympie Times that:

"GYMPIE Regional Council seems to be taking a leaf out of Premier Anna Bligh's book and is selling off land assets to fund its budget." He quoted "Corporate Governance and Finance Committee chairperson Councillor Donna Neilson" as having said that "Council planned to sell off industrial land at Tin Can Bay, Monkland and a home at Kilkivan to raise revenue."

Apparently Cr Neilson had said that the council would not be selling off assets just to keep running, 'only' those deemed 'superfluous'.

She was reported as having explained that, “Not all the $115 million budget comes from rates revenue,“only about $40 million.”

Urban Development on Inskip Peninsula will send residents' broke through rising rates, taxes & costs

Referring to outlying land-sales to suburban developers, Greg Wood, Coordinator of Friends of Rainbow Beach, said on Thursday (23 July 09) that Urban development on Inskip Peninsula won’t just destroy local lifestyle, it will help send us all broke.

Mr Wood cited a recent study by Victorian Department of Planning that found infrastructure costs due to urban extension are more than twice as much as those needed for infill development.

“Rainbow Shores Stage 2, and the unconsulted Land Swap being engineered to replace it, are both urban extensions beyond the existing township” said Mr Wood. “Both would cost ratepayers and taxpayers more than twice as much to support over time than would sensible development within the existing town footprint”.

Mr Wood said that, given the spiral of rate rises Gympie Regional Council feels compelled to inflict on rate-payers, Councillors would be either foolish or irresponsible to ignore this study.

Development doesn't pay for itself; ratepayers pick up much of the tab

“Some Councillors will say the developer pays all of the development costs,” said Mr Wood. “This is dangerously incorrect. A large proportion of the works and services that are ultimately needed due to any development are not even designed or costed at the time of application approval. They can’t possibly be charged accurately. And then there’s the additional, ongoing cost of upkeep.”

Mr Wood says the Victorian report quantifies the absolutely enormous total cost of infrastructure needed due to relentless urban development. The report presents a cost of $653m for total infrastructure required for 1,000 dwellings built in extension of the existing urban area at. The cost for same amount developed as infill is $309m.

Urban sprawl costs ratepayers twice as much as infill

“That’s over $600,000 and $300,000 per household respectively, said Mr Wood. “There’s no way the average household can contribute this amount to public finances. To the extent services are provided, and many are late or never arrive, they are payed for via debt. With the rate of urban sprawl being encouraged by this current Government it’s not hard to see exactly how the infamous State Budget black hole has been dug.”

Call to Queensland State Gov to cease trampling on local communities

Mr Wood called on the Queensland State Govt to cease trampling on the lives and finances of local communities and ordinary citizens in its increasingly mad rush to serve the interests of private developers. He said development must fulfil community need and not just speculator greed

He has also called on Gympie Regional Council to do something useful about the region’s financial security. He says the current plan of simply leaning on ratepayers until they bust is neither fair nor secure.

Council urged to lobby secretive State against inflicting costly Inskip development on Gympie ratepayers

“Council can make a good start on this by effectively lobbying the State over the expensive Inskip white elephant that is now being concocted behind closed doors”, said Mr Wood.

According to the Gympie Times, the Queensland state budget transferred many costs from state to councils. LNP State Member for Gympie David Gibson said that the council's planning had been 'thrown into chaos'. He illustrated this by explaining that simple things like street lights that the state was no longer funding were now council's responsibility and council could either turn the lights off or pass the cost on to ratepayers. He commented that pensioners and people on fixed incomes would be particularly badly affected.

I became aware of scandal in Brimbank Council a few years ago, because I assisted Jill Quirk in the editing of a film where Jill and Gloria O'Connor interviewed Marilyn Canet at length. The film, entitled, The Arcane Battle of Taylors Lakes has never been publicly released, but has been held as a document. Yesterday I recontacted Marilyn Canet and asked her what she thought of the investigations and the parliamentary speech. She said that she had been present in Parliament when Mrs Powell, the Member for Shepparton, had delivered her speech (published below) and that she thought it was very accurate. In addition Marilyn wrote:

"Since 2002 I have submitted more than 130 items of correspondence, submissions, reports to the Premier, Ministers, Auditor General, Attorney General, Victoria Police and other bodies requesting a full investigation into alleged corruption in Brimbank.

. No satisfactory investigations took place in response to those efforts.

. I have issued correspondence to the Victorian Ombudsman since the issue of his report outlining a further 22 issues which I believe his investigation should have included. In other words the recent investigation was narrowly focused and did not serve to present the full breadth of the allegations of irregular/corrupt practices.

. The Ombudsman's office was aware of these further issues from correspondence previously issued to his office. Appropriate actions should have been taken in 2004 when first notified.

. The reasons provided by the Ombudsman's Office for failure to investigate all allegations during this investigation was the limited resources available.

. It is the writers view that this case demonstrates the necessity for the urgent appointment of an Independent broad based Crime and Corruption Body to Victoria."
(Marilyn Canet)

Local government: corruption

[Subheadings added by candobetter editor]
Mrs POWELL [Nationals Victoria member for Shepparton] stated on 10 June 2009 — Today I grieve for the erosion of democracy in local government under this Labor government which refuses to stamp out corruption and thereby fails the people of Victoria, particularly those in the western suburbs.

To show Victorians the type of corruption evident within Labor Party ranks, today a second Ombudsman’s report has been tabled. It outlines allegations that a council building inspector, Mr Peter Anastasi, used information and influence in his role with the council to obtain a personal advantage in the purchase of a property. The Ombudsman has asked that those allegations be referred to Victoria Police for its consideration. This is another damning report on the Brimbank City Council and on this government’s allowance of corrupt practices in that council.

Rally for democracy on steps of Parliament

A rally is being held on the steps of Parliament House today, involving councillors from all over Victoria who are outraged at the government’s removal of planning powers from local government. I grieve because I know how important local government is; it has a vital role.

Members in this house know I have been a local government commissioner, but they forget that I have also been an elected councillor and an elected president with the Shire of Greater Shepparton.

I grieve for the councillors who will lose their jobs around Victoria ...

I understand the roles and responsibilities of a councillor. I grieve for the councillors who will lose their jobs around Victoria not because they have done anything wrong, but because this government has failed to stamp out corruption. It knew about those practices in the Brimbank council; it was warned for years, but it refused to do anything, and now decent, hardworking councillors across Victoria have to decide whether they want to be a councillor or whether they want to work for a member of Parliament.

...Because the government has sat on its hands and allowed corruption to escalate

These councillors have done absolutely nothing wrong, but the government has sat on its hands and allowed corruption to escalate because it does not want to upset the factional warlords and jeopardise their political careers. The factions really run Labor-dominated councils, as we have seen from the Brimbank report, which I will talk about later.

John Cain on Victorian ALP machine

It is not just the coalition or the community that believe there is corruption in Labor councils. An Age article of
16 May is headed, ‘Cain attacks ALP for council abuses.’ It reads:

Former Premier John Cain has called on leaders of the Victorian ALP machine to show some political will and stamp out the alarming abuses of power revealed in the Labor-dominated Brimbank council.

Mr Cain says the appalling behaviour of the ALP figures in the western suburb municipality, exposed in a scathing Ombudsman’s report last week, is an indictment of the whole party and a challenge to its organisational leaders.
The article further says:

It has the rules and processes to do so. All that is needed is the political will.

The article goes on:

Mr Cain, who wrote a damming internal report for the ALP five years ago on corrupt party practices in the western suburbs, says the Labor machine knows how to root out the problems.

… In reference to his 2004 report and other investigations Mr Cain writes: ‘Some years ago the Victorian ALP was shown, by internal inquiries conducted under its rules, what was wrong. It was told quite unambiguously what was needed to be done to remedy these faults. The branch stacking and ghost branch meetings had to stop. (But) for several reasons, it chose not to act.’

That is a damning indictment by a former Labor Premier of this state.

Marilyn Canet

I also grieve for the people of the western suburbs who have put up with these practices for years and have begged the government to intervene. For many years community members have written letters and made submissions to the government and Brimbank council asking them to stop the corrupt practices. I do not have time to go through all of them, but one of the people I would like particularly to speak about is Marilyn Canet, who on 1 July 2005 wrote to all members of Parliament. I have on file a copy of the letter I received from Ms Canet, who was then the Save Our Suburbs municipal representative for Brimbank.

The letter states:

The attached document has been issued to all parliamentary members and relevant planning bodies representing Victoria. It concerns alleged corruption involving the Brimbank City Council, but more importantly, the state government’s refusal to investigate and address those matters.

A letter from Ms Canet of 29 June 2005 says:

A full investigation into Brimbank City Council was recently sought in a parliamentary motion by the Hon. Bill Forwood and the Hon. John Vogels. Six Brimbank councillors (including the mayor of the time) were named in relation to alleged corruption involving a ‘councillor pool of moneys’ contributed by Brimbank developers, real estate agents and other businesses, intended to finance the named councillor’s 2003 election campaign …

Years of letters ignored by local and state government...

Ms Canet goes on to talk about the letters and submissions she has put to this government and to members of the ALP for years, and nothing has been done other than the Ombudsman finally being asked to look into those matters.

The Sunshine Ratepayers Association has written numerous letters, and Darlene Reilly has been to Brimbank City Council. There have been numerous letters and submissions sent to the former Minister for Local Government and to the Minister, for Planning, asking them to intervene and stop corrupt practices at the Brimbank council. A former shadow Minister for Local Government, John Vogels, also raised this matter a number of times in the other house, urging the government to step in and investigate allegations of corrupt and illegal practices by Labor councillors, and again nothing has happened.

Local MPs in the area called for investigations into Brimbank

The local MPs in the area became involved. Mr Bernie Finn, a member for Western Metropolitan Region in the other house, has continually called for investigations into Brimbank. If members read the upper house debates regarding the Brimbank council, they will see how many people have asked for investigations into the Brimbank council, going back many years. In this house the member for Keilor delivered an absolute tirade on the Brimbank council in the grievance debate, and anyone who wants to understand how corrupt he saw Brimbank council as being just has to read in Hansard the debate of 30 July last year. It is a shame that I do not have enough time to put more on record, but those who are interested should read the report of that tirade.

The member for Keilor is the local member. He is also a longstanding Labor member, and in absolute frustration he used the grievance debate to urge the government to investigate the Brimbank council.

Ombudsman's investigation finally occurred

On behalf of the coalition I wrote to the Ombudsman the day after that tirade, calling for an investigation of the serious misconduct of two councils — the Brimbank council and the Port Phillip City Council. I sent the Ombudsman a copy of the Hansard speech of the member for Keilor and his claims of threats, bribery, intimidation, misuse of council funds, mismanagement, improper behaviour and the Brimbank council’s failure to govern effectively. I also sent the Ombudsman a transcript of the ABC program Stateline of Friday, 25 July, which raised some serious issues about the conduct of Labor councillors and Labor members. Mr George Brouwer, the Ombudsman, responded on 7 August last year saying that he was conducting his own investigation into Port Phillip council but had decided to conduct a formal investigation into the Brimbank council following my request.

The Ombudsman’s report was tabled on 7 May, about nine months after it was requested. This report was much-awaited by the coalition, but more importantly it was much-awaited by the Labor government, ALP councillors at Brimbank and all ALP members, because they would have known it would be a damning indictment of the way Labor runs councils — for Labor’s benefit and not for the benefit of communities.

The 208-page document goes absolutely to the cut and thrust of what was happening at Brimbank at the time. I suggest that any member who wants to find out how not to run a council and about the misuse of power by councillors, should read the Ombudsman’s report. I congratulate the Ombudsman on the thoroughness of the report. It was tabled on 7 May and is entitled Investigation into the Alleged Improper Conduct of Councillors at Brimbank City Council, and.

The report states:

Councillors are mandated to represent the interests of the community and to faithfully and impartially carry out their functions to the best of their skill and judgement. They are required to act honestly and to exercise reasonable care and diligence and must not make improper use of their position or information acquired, because of their position, to advantage themselves or any other person or to cause detriment to the council.

It further states:

Sadly, my investigation into the conduct of councillors at Brimbank City Council identified that the behaviour of many councillors failed to meet those standards.

Dysfunctional council, influence of unelected persons

The report goes on to detail evidence given to the Ombudsman about a dysfunctional council, the influence of unelected persons who held no elected local government office, including individuals who would be or who were in the past precluded from holding office because of criminal convictions. These are people who are dealing with councillors, talking to councillors and trying to make decisions in their interests rather than in the interests of the people of the western suburbs.

...Conflicts of interest, an improper use of power, bullying and intimidation, misuse of council funds and equipment including pornographic material...

The Ombudsman found there were conflicts of interest, an improper use of power, bullying and intimidation, misuse of council funds and equipment including pornographic material and inappropriate software on the laptops of two councillors, the inappropriate release of information, improper use of electoral information and concerns about the Office of Local Government not being funded sufficiently to carry out the statutory responsibilities of investigating breaches of the Local Government Act. The report goes on and on about the corrupt practices at the Brimbank council.

The government has said it will implement all of the recommendations in the report, including having the Minister for Local Government closely monitor the activities of the council and suspending it if the current poor practices continue. The Ombudsman also recommended that the Local Government Act be amended to disqualify persons employed as electorate officers, ministerial advisers and parliamentary advisers, and anyone employed by a federal or state MP from becoming or continuing to be a councillor or nominating as a councillor. As I said earlier, this means that councillors across Victoria who are hard working and are not guilty of any offence will be sacked.

Conflict with Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities

We have to wonder whether, when this legislation is introduced, it will be contrary to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. I understand the Municipal Association of Victoria is seeking some advice on that issue.

Some of the most damning evidence is that this government is saying it has put in place a code of conduct and conflict-of-interest guidelines, and it talks about the issue of bias and says that councillors must come to their council chambers with an open mind and be able to change their minds.

ALP 'Municipal Caucus rules'

I will read briefly from the ALP’s ‘municipal caucus rules’. These show how members of the ALP — councillors of the caucus — cannot have open minds.

The rules state:

12.6.1 An ALP caucus shall be established in each municipal government area where two or more endorsed ALP candidates have been elected to office, All endorsed ALP candidates who have been elected to office shall belong to the ALP caucus.
…
12.6.6 The vote of an absolute majority of eligible caucus members shall bind all members of caucus and no member shall oppose in debate in council any matter which has been determined by caucus, except by the agreement of caucus.
…
12.6.9 Any member of caucus first wishing to introduce an item in council under general business shall first submit that item to caucus for its consideration.

12.6.10 In the case of a notice of motion which must be submitted before the notice paper is published, permission to submit such a motion must be given by the president of caucus.

12.6.11 The caucus shall determine who shall move and second motions to be introduced or coming before council arising from caucus decisions.
…
12.6.14 Meetings of caucus shall be held in camera. Unless required by these rules, no member of caucus shall divulge any information regarding the proceedings of caucus unless authorised to do so by an absolute majority of eligible caucus members or the administrative committee.

Mrs Powell: Municipal caucus rules not in the public interest

I call on the government to immediately abandon its municipal caucus rules in the public interest and the interests of good local government. People need to have confidence in local government, and they have to respect the office of local government. Victoria needs to stamp out corruption at all levels of government.
Obviously this Labor government has shown that it does not have the will to do that.

It is not just the opposition that says this; former Labor Premier John Cain, the community of Brimbank and councils right across Victoria are saying we should stamp out corruption. They are telling this government to use the power it has, to use the Local Government Act to stamp it out, to stop it before it festers and grows and escalates. Those of us who support local government say, ‘Stop these corrupt practices’.

Call for independent, broadbased anticorruption commission

To stamp out corruption at all levels of government Victoria needs an independent, broadbased anticorruption commission. I believe we are almost the only state without one, so I call on the government to listen to what the opposition is saying. We support local government and ask this Labor government to put in place the Ombudsman’s recommendations and stamp out corruption.

ALP should take the muzzles off the Labor councillors

More than that, we ask the government to talk to its Labor councillors and allow them to speak on behalf of the community, not for members caucus and the ALP who deal with ALP policies and practices. In the interests of local government I urge the government to work with local government, to stamp out corruption and allow local government to get on with what it does best — namely, represent the interests of its community.

Source: Hansard Victoria, 10 June 2009, heading, "Local Government: Corruption"

Andrew Bolt's story, "Green rules, black forests" is one of many mainstream media sources to keep alive the legend of the brave Sheehans' fight for justice and safety against their philistine greenie neighbours. But there is even more to that story than the press have so-far published. Read on...

The story so far:

"THEY were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained. But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break — an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised — they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek still standing....

Mr Sheahan is still angry about his prosecution, which cost him $100,000 in fines and legal fees. The council’s planning laws allow trees to be cleared only when they are within six metres of a house. Mr Sheahan cleared trees up to 100 metres away from his house." (Source: Andrew Bolt, "Green rules, black forest"

But the plot thickens...

Apparently NO journalist has contacted the Mitchell Shire Council to investigate its version of the Sheahans' story. However close investigation reveals a much more interesting side to life by the forests and how communities can pull together or apart to preserve or destroy their environment and themselves.

People may read the records for themselves here:
http://www.mitchellshire.vic.gov.au/Files/12_Sept_05_minutes.pdf

The Council records show that before November 2003 the Sheahans cleared an environmental overlay of 1.2 Ha old growth eucalptus (past their fire-prone growth - as could be demonstrated from their size and age), adjoining State forest. In so-doing the Sheahans also created flat ground for their horses.

The Sheahans apparently fell afoul of the local council because neighbours complained about what they had done, which was against the law. So the Council was acting on complaints from neighbours of the Sheahans.

Far from being 'dragged into court' the Council records seem to show that every attempt was made to keep the matter out of court and to resolve it with the least hassle for all parties.

Victims of their own actions?

The records seem to show that the Sheahans were the ones to cost themselves and the Council time and money.

For instance, in an attempt to settle the matter without great cost, the council sought the Sheahans' agreement to pay $2,500 in council costs and to plant some more vegetation. In 2003, they agreed to pay this $2,500 Council and to repair some of the damage by revegetating.

They then failed to do what they had said they would. The council attempted to renew dialogue.

"Get stuffed!"

In 2004 the Sheahans responded to attempts to communicate further on the issue with a letter telling Council and residents to 'get stuffed'.

In 2004 the court case could no longer be avoided.

The Sheahans attempted to convince the council that their motive for felling the old-growth trees in the environmental overlay had been to remove fire-danger. They had, however, left logs piled up in the area where the healthy old trees had been. There is a 2004 photograph which shows that these logs had later been involved in a fire following a couple of bad fire-risk seasons. .

Although the Sheahans have claimed that they bulldozed logs to create a fire-barrier, this was not the opinion of a fire-hazard inspector, who reckoned they had created a fire-hazard. The Council issued the Sheahans with an order to remove the fire-hazard from the property.

Magistrate also not convinced about the 'fire-break'.

In court, the Magistrate held that the Sheahans' claim of a fire-barrier was not plausible because they had “only sought to consider exemptions under the Mitchell Planning Scheme after the fact”.

Due to the efforts of the council and the CFA the pile of burnt logs was removed from the Sheahan property. The fact that the Sheahans survived the most recent fires may be in part due to the removal of the fire-hazard they had themselves created out of trees which had survived many fires intact.

A sore loser by any other name ...

That would make them ungrateful sore-losers, if placed in a kindly light.

It therefore seems to me - going by these records - that, failing some other well-based explanation, it is fair and reasonable to label the Sheahans 'law breakers'.

It also seems reasonable to label the press in this matter, 'pot-stirrers', or something much worse, perhaps, given the gravity of grief and loss in Victoria - the most cleared state of Australia.

What do you think?

In their coverage of this story the mainstream press seem again to demonstrate that they are the mouthpieces of narrow commercial interest by the opportunistic and unbalanced manner in which this matter has so far been reported. Their silence - ABC and commercial alike - is deafening on the truth, which was that the most 'managed' and back-burned forests burned the hottest, whereas much old-growth survived these and many other fires.

With press like this, who needs enemies - or even 'Green terrorists'?

In an effort to silence residents with difficult questions, Western Australia's Cockburn Council routinely limits question time and threatens residents who defy these limits with AU$1,000 fines. The Mayor, Stephen Lee, is now on extended leave after the Crime Commission had found him guilty of misconduct for having accepted an undeclared election campaign donation of AU$43,000 from the Singapore-controlled developer Australand, which wanted to build the controversial Port Coogee Marina.

See also: Postscript: Cockburn Councillors threaten to use ratepayer funds to sue residents, Appendix: Cockburn Community advertisement of 18 Nov 08

The article below, by Mary Jenkins secretary of the Spearwood Residents Association, who stood as an independent candidate in the recent state elections, appeared in the Cockburn Herald on or before 18 Nov 08.

The Cockburn Gazette, in its story, "Protestors Blasted" of 18 November, reported that 100 people with placards had protested at the council meeting and police had been called in to control the residents. The Mayor of Cockburn, Stephen Lee, is now on extended leave after the Crime Commission had found him guilty of misconduct for having accepted an undeclared election campaign donation of AU$43,000 from the Singapore-controlled developer Australand, which wanted to build the controversial Port Coogee Marina.

This article, by Mary Jenkins secretary of the Spearwood Residents Association, who stood as an independent candidate in the recent state elections, appeared in recently in a Western Australian newspaper.

I was secretary of the West Ward community Association in 1985. I always had good relationships with three mayors and the Commissioners who ran council in 1999. Things changed when Stephen Lee became mayor especially since his second term when he began to silence anyone who asked question he did not want to answer.

What infuriated people that attended council meetings in the last few years were how the public were treated with contempt and their questions dismissed. Who is to say that a different council would have done things much better and at considerably less cost to ratepayers? The complete cost has not yet been realised!

How many council general meetings have the people who gave unquestionably support to the mayor, attended? Anyone who attends council meetings regularly, because they are interested in community affairs and process, will be aware of the rapid decline. Councillors could have halted the decline if they had requested further question time at any meeting. They did not once over-rule mayor Lee. Hence the community reaction and threatened with $1,000 fine if they spoke up for further time to ask questions or demanded answers to new planning developments, is to be expected from a vibrant community.

As secretary of the Spearwood Community Association and a member of Concerned Citizens for Good Governance I would like to make it clear that the administration of our council is not the issue of conflict. The administrators are professional people doing a good job under difficult circumstances. They have always listened to and attended our Association meetings, unlike our ward councillors today.

Many of the people who object to the mayor and councillors process have lived in Cockburn for over 60 years. Some have also been councillors themselves and have never experienced what is happening today! Three of our X mayors are also disturbed at the present state of Cockburn Council.

In fact this is having economic consequences both inside and outside Cockburn. Cockburn is no longer considered a property positive place to live in the future according to the Real Estate editor of the Sunday Times (2 Nov 08). Cockburn did not even get a mention. Seems once again the investment and drive is North of the river! So is the transport system!

Could this be because Cockburn has always been a safe union faction ALP seat? Our local member Fran Logan has never lived in Cockburn. In fact the last two state ALP union faction members - Norm Marlbourgh and Bill Thomas - never lived here either! Not one of them ever spoke up for a good coastal train service that would develop Cockburn as a tourist place. Instead industry has been given a free hand to pollute the air we breathe. It is only since the community lobbied for deep sewerage that it is happening at last. Our ALP member and present council ignored this until a State election was imminent this year.

Spearwood Association endorsed the petition to the Minister and rejected Stephen Lee's 3 months leave on full pay at their October meeting. Who is to say 3 month will resolve Lee's problem, hardly likely given McCusker is about to resign and it took Julian Grill a year? What then? Another 3 months in January when there is no general council meeting? How long will this go on for we ask the Minister?

Many of the protesters are people who take an interest in local affairs and planning. They like living in Cockburn. They hope one day Cockburn will return to a democratic council where the community voice is listened to. The alternative is for WEST Ward to become part of Fremantle. Then a proper coastal development can take place without the conflict that exists today between both Fremantle and Cockburn councils. Traffic problems will not be ignored through the region, cycle ways and pedestrian paths will be restored on the coast as part of Fremantle tourism.

Whatever the future holds things will need to change from the present situation. The next council general meeting is on November 13th. Can we expect police on horseback, security with dogs and ten police and plain-clothes detectives present? Is this the way to run a local council meeting where most protesters are over 50, some as old at 80, and just doing what is their right in a democratic country? Come along and support people power.

Mary Jenkins 3 November 2008. Mary ran as an independent candidate in the September State election.

#LegalThreats" id="LegalThreats">Postscript: Cockburn Councillors threaten to use ratepayer funds to sue residents

The Cockburn Herald of Saturday 22 November reported in its story "Councillors legal threat against rowdy ratepayers":

"Acting Cockburn Mayor Kevin Allen wants to sue his constituents for being mean to him at recent council meetings.

"He says he is tired of having abuse hurled at him by rowdy members of Citizens for Good Governance and describes their comments as defamatory, appalling and childish.

"'They are not good people -- they are anarchists,' he said."

Councillor Allen said that he was seeking legal advice.

Councillor is acting Mayor whilst Mayor Stephen Lee is on fully paid leave whilst appealing against five counts of misconduct by the Crime and Corruption Commission for having accepted an undeclared AU$43,000 donation from Australand during the last Council election campaign.

Another Councillor Carol Reeves-Folkes said that she would also be seeking legal advice. She stated that she "will throw everything and everything at people who continue to disrupt the meeting," whilst Helen Atrill and Julie Baker felt that they hadn't been defamed and other councillors did not return calls.

The Cockburn Herald report continued:

"Citizens for Good Governance convener Robyn Scherr said her group had been unfairly targeted.

"'The Council is lashing out because they feel threatened,' she said.

"'We are still calling for the council to be sacked and if the minister can't sack the council, then he should resign.'"

#CockburnCommunityAdvertisment" id="CockburnCommunityAdvertisment">Appendix: Cockburn Community advertisement of 18 Nov 08

The following is the full text from the advertisement which appeared in the Cockburn City Herald of 18 Nov 08 together with some of the scanned image.

COCKBURN
COUNCIL
HAS FAILED

The community wanted Council to demand Mayor Stephen Lee to resign. They should have stripped the "Misconduct Mayor" of his exorbitant pay! But without debate, councillors quickly voted to use our money to give Mr Lee a paid holiday! By acting as a team in support of the disgraced Mayor they've condemned themselves as well.

$20,000 on PR spin
$20,000 for the Mayor's holiday
$20,000 more holidays in January?

Justice Delayed
Justice Denied!

WE NEED
YOUR HELP
TO TAKE BACK CONTROL
OF YOUR COUNCIL

Here's some more about the meeting:

"What do we want? Live, work, rest and play."

The CBD residents associations invite you to come to an open meeting to discuss
Our City’s future tonight
Wednesday 24th September 2008
at 6pm
in the Bluestone Room, Coopers Inn
(cnr Exhibition St and Little Lonsdale St)*
* Sorry – this venue has no facilities for wheelchair access.

There will be a CITY COUNCIL ELECTION on 29th November.

It is vital that we all take an active part to ensure that we elect a Council that works for Melbourne.

The current Council spends too much time and effort squabbling amongst itself.
We must have a council that WORKS FOR MELBOURNE

Come and make your voice heard. Let us work together. We can make it happen.

Editor's comment:
This is a sign of the times. People are realising that they must take democracy into their own hands or lose it at government hands.

Original article from Macedon Ranges Residents' Association (www.mrra.asn.au)

(16/7/08 - SG) How do we know if our politicians, councillors or decisions have been bought? The short answer is, we don't.

We need look no further than New South Wales and the Wollongong scandal for confirmation that money can buy governments and decisions, particularly planning decisions. Yet NSW has an Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC], something we don't have in Victoria.

So how bad is it in Victoria, where accountability in any form no longer seems to kick up as one of the State's strong points?

In the past week, 3 articles have appeared in the Age newspaper - shocking and revealing stuff. Written by veteran journos Royce Millar and Kenneth Davidson, the articles snap the spotlight onto Victoria's lack of an ICAC, lack of accountability, and shifting views on and stubborn political denial that there's a problem when it comes to who is paying who in politics. From these articles, it seems Victoria's Premier sees political donations not as potentially corrupting influences but just part of a healthy democracy. Like kissing babies, perhaps?

You can access the Age articles by clicking the following links:

• In a healthy democracy, influence cannot be bought, Royce Millar, The Age, 7/7/08 at
  http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/in-a-healthy-democracy-influence-cannot-be-bought-20080710-3d4i.html
• Money is the root of all Political evil, Kenneth Davidson, The Age, 10/7/08 at
  http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/money-is-the-root-of-all-political-evil-20080709-3cji.html
• A Little Bit of Give and Take, Royce Millar, The Age 16/7/08 at
  http://www.theage.com.au/national/a-little-bit-of-give-and-take-20080710-3d51.html

MRRA Says:

In the first article, Millar takes the discussion to the next logical step, and raises the issue of political donations and sponsorship in local government. And what a good discussion it is.

Anyone who thinks buying influence doesn't happen in local government should think again. It's bad enough if it's happening at Federal and State levels, but in those arenas there is more scrutiny and access so potentially more public pressure, and more chance of being caught.

In comparison, it can go almost unseen and undetected at local government level. A nod, a wink, a quiet word; rarely anything as crude as a brown paper bag or a pair of white shoes. Delivering 'favours for mates' can be something as subtle as promising to vote for what another Councillor wants if they'll vote for you this time, overlooking a conflict of interest, or orchestrating noisy albeit minority support for pet projects. These are just some of the ways private agendas can be delivered.

Millar raises an interesting point: while Councillors have to declare donations received during an election campaign, they don't have to declare them until well after the election. Their sponsors remain anonymous when you go to vote. It's all a secret, until they start to vote.

MRRA finds it a very relevant subject, given the recent invention of Macedon Ranges Residents' Secretariat Limited, a company representing development interests, possibly even political party interests, that seems intent on trying to confuse the Macedon Ranges' community into thinking it's us, MRRA Inc - i.e. a 'good guy' acting in the interests of the wider community - to the point of even pinching most of our name! Flattering, but...

MRRA estimates that to date, MRRS Ltd may have spent something in the order of well over $10,000 launching itself and its agenda (the latest effort being a survey sent to all households in the Shire, replete with reply paid envelopes - who could afford that!!!). Not to mention the individual numbering on each "ballot paper" (survey form) which must have cost a fortune to print. But wait, there's more! No, not a free set of knives, but MRRS Ltd is even giving away an expensive free meal - and free transport to and from home - to tempt residents into playing its game. And the feeling in our water is that neither the 'spend' nor the 'big sell' is over yet...

What could be worth that type of investment by business, development and real estate interests? And who exactly are all those interests? What do they want? Will all be revealed anytime soon?

Which leads us to the next question. Is the long-term objective of MRRS Ltd to get people elected onto council who will do what MRRS Ltd wants? Is that why MRRS Ltd says on its survey form, "MRRS offers assistance to potential candidates prior to elections and post elections, when elected..."? [our emphasis]

And how does MRRS Ltd's invitation to residents to become members work? MRRS Ltd has already publicly stated its recruitment will be through hand-picked secondment of like-minded people by its directors. In any event, don't you usually have to buy shares to be a 'member' of a company? MRRS Ltd is a public company, so do residents need a stock broker to become a 'member'?

Crickey, it's all too convoluted and complicated for us, but then MRRA is just a grass-roots community group used to its members joining up normally - they make a written application and pay an annual fee.

The grubby world of buying political influence is one where decisions are consistently made to serve self- and vested interests. Merit and 'public good' doesn't come into it. Is there really that much at stake? You betcha. There's big, big money in buying governments and influence (look no further than Wollongong, for example), and in stacking Councils with 'like-minded' mates to ensure favourable outcomes. Under the right conditions, it can spread like an aggressive cancer. Does Macedon Ranges have the disease?