North Coast Holiday Parks wants Brunswick Buccaneer evicted
For 30 years, Brunswick Buccaneers has been an icon of Brunswick Heads, but now the tourist attraction is under threat from NSW government bureaucrats. An eviction notice was served ‘without warning’ last Easter by Colin Woodbry from North Coast Holiday Parks (NCHP) to operator Ilan Schnitzler, who has for the last 15 years hired boats, kayaks, canoes and paddle boards from his pirate ship on the river opposite the pub. Additionally, The Echo has learned that NSW Crown Lands employee Nessbit Hurcum has hand-balled responsibility of the surrounding parks and waterways to NCHP and is ‘reluctant to go against the recommendations’ of its Trust manager and former Byron Shire Council employee, Jim Bolger. In a startling reply to Echo inquiries, Mr Bolger refused to explain his decision to evict Mr Schnitzler and, like NCHP’s financial records, his actions remain cloaked in secrecy. Mr Bolger told The Echo, ‘The Trust will not take part in discussing licence or legal issues through the media.’ Another PR blunder It’s the latest public relations blunder and take-over bid by the state government-owned and privately run corporation; three Brunswick Heads caravan parks and foreshore land that were previously managed by Council were controversially taken away in 2006. An Echo investigation later revealed that after that take-over, Council is now much worse off financially for it. Additionally, residents criticised NCHP over the caravan parks’ subsequent encroachment on footpaths, roads and foreshores. So far, the only state MP to be critical of the lack of transparency with the cost shifting and loss of amenity to locals is Jan Barham, who is also a former Byron Shire mayor. And like other residents of Brunswick Heads, Mr Schnitzler is putting up a fight. He says the consent authority of the waterway is Crown Lands, despite being ‘vaguely threatened’ by NCHP about having customers ‘illegally’ use the steps from the park as an embarkation point. ‘I received a letter by NCHP last Easter saying my lease had been terminated because of unpaid rent,’ Mr Schnitzler told The Echo. ‘I was given just four days to leave, and an extension of two weeks if I paid the $300 that was owing. There was no warning. They claimed I did not pay them rent, but I never received those letters. It was a very unprofessional letter.’ Four days’ notice He says his tenure with Council to operate on Simpsons Creek rolled over to NCHP after it took control. This also includes access to Banner Park, where his boat is moored. But after engaging a solicitor to defend the eviction, Mr Schnitzler says he was advised that Crown Lands have jurisdiction on the creek, ‘as the boat is moored below the mean high-water mark and that is where the Banner Park boundary ends.’ However Crown Lands have hand-balled responsibility instead to NCHP. Mr Schnitzler’s legal representative, Claire Lovejoy, told The Echo, ‘It appears from [Crown Lands area manager] Nessbit Hurcum’s last email that the only reason they are not giving Mr Schnitzler a permit to stay in the Crown Lands creek is because NCHP won’t give him a permit for customers to access the stairs. ‘So while he is moored in Crown Lands jurisdiction, NCHP are involved because customers enter through Banner Park. ‘I have been verbally advised by Marine Parks and Ilan has said RMS have said they will also provide their permits once he gets ‘tenure’ to stay. That can only come through Crown Lands, who say they will only provide it if NCHP allow the customers to access the stairs.’ While Mr Schnitzler says he received no return calls or emails after asking Crown Lands to intervene, Ms Lovejoy says she received an email from Mr Hurcum advising her client that he was, ‘reluctant to go against the recommendations’ of the NCHP reserve trust manager and offer a separate tenure. Instead, Mr Hurcum suggested that as plans of management for the reserves are now on display for comment, ‘it may be an appropriate avenue for you to raise this matter through comment, for discussion and adoption – given the iconic nature of your client’s enterprise.’ The eviction plans by bureaucrats at NCHP and the hand-balling of responsibility by Crown Lands were also kept a secret from NSW minister for north coast, Don Page (Nationals). MP ‘surprised’ It raises the question as to what accountability the NCHP corporation has to the government and suggests Mr Bolger and his bureaucrats are undermining the authority of the politicans – and therefore the public – whom they are supposed to serve. While Mr Page didn’t answer The Echo’s question as to whether he was happy with Jim Bolger’s performance as NCHP manager, he did say, ‘I do receive briefings from time to time on Crown Land issues in Brunswick Heads but I’ve not been briefed on the Brunswick Buccaneers situation.’ As for the lack of transparency by NCHP, Mr Page said he was ‘surprised to hear’ that NCHP is refusing to explain its actions. ‘I believe and the government believes in transparency, so an explanation should be made.’ He added that he will follow up the case this week. Meanwhile, Mr Schnitzler’s operation remains in limbo as he has no current permit to stay in the creek. It comes as plans of management for Brunswick Heads caravan parks and foreshores by NCHP were put on public display. So far it has been slammed by residents as ‘pursuing maximum profits without regard for social or environmental impacts’. Bolger also wants redgum removed Additionally a plan by NCHP to remove an 80-year-old forest redgum (Eucalyptus Tereticornis) in Banner Park recently angered locals who successfully fought to retain it ten years ago after it was also then deemed dangerous. Byron Shire Council staff instead have recommended the fate of the tree be left up to councillors at the February 14 meeting. NCHP’s Colin Woodbry did not reply to The Echo by the time of going to press; however, Crown Lands senior surveyor Nessbit Hurcum told The Echo he could not respond to our enquiries due to departmental protocols, but the enquiry had been sent to their communications group. n Disclosure: the reporter for this story is related to Mr Schnitzler’s legal representative.
0 Comments
State coalition minister and Byron Bay resident, Don Page, is unsupportive of a 12,000-strong petition by residents calling for a north coast moratorium on coal seam gas The widely anticipated petition was tabled in parliament last week after it reached 10,000 signatures. Mr Page, who is the minister for the north coast, instead used parliament time to launch attacks on the region’s two federal Labor MPs and members of the public opposed to mining expansion. It follows widespread opposition to CSG by communities throughout the north coast, including many declarations by towns and local councils against the industry taking a foothold. Protests against CSG continued last week with residents from Lismore and Richmond Valley rallying outside Metgasco’s offices and drill sites. While defending his government’s unprecedented ‘tough’ restrictions on the industry, he accused ‘disingenuous individuals’ of conducting anti-coal seam gas surveys in residential locations in north coast towns, despite their knowing that his government, ‘already banned CSG activity in all NSW residential areas and in a two-kilometre buffer zone surrounding every residential area.’ But Richmond MP Justine Elliot hit back saying, ‘The Nationals betrayed the people of the north coast in supporting CSG mining’. She also challenged the CSG companies, saying if there are no coal seam reserves in her electorate then they should return their exploration licences. And while Mr Page didn’t name Justine Elliott (Richmond MP) and Janelle Saffin (former Page MP), he told parliament, ‘it was a shameless electioneering tactic, initiated by two Labor federal members on the northern rivers in a desperate attempt to boost their chances in the recent federal elections.’ ‘They stood in main streets gathering signatures and spreading alarm about coal seam gas – scaremongering to try to save their seats – in the full knowledge that coal seam gas companies had walked away from the north coast months before because our rules are so tough. When asked by The Echo to clarify that statement given Metgasco are recommencing drilling near Casino, he said, ‘Metgasco have sealed all their CSG exploration wells and only have an interest in conventional natural gas.’ And with regard to the petition’s request to exempt the north coast from mining, Mr Page told parliament, ‘It is not good public policy to discriminate either for or against any particular geographic area of the state, no matter how close to paradise that part of the world might be.’ ‘The government’s role is not to advocate on behalf of mining companies, but to have the regulatory framework that protects our land and water resources and our environment – something that Labor never did.’ During the debate, Lismore MP Thomas George also went on the attack, accusing former Page MP Janelle Saffin of allowing mining expansion while in office. ‘She was a member of the Legislative Council when the licences were issued for the northern rivers. They took the money and ran.’ But surprisingly Mr George then stated his support for fossil fuel expansion. ‘If we do not produce the extra energy needed in this state, especially in the northern rivers, major businesses such as the Northern Co-operative Meat Company will pack up and move over the border. They cannot survive without cheaper energy.’ Page challenged on renewables Meanwhile Greens NSW MP John Kaye challenged MP Page’s sustainable credentials and vision for the Ballina electorate. ‘National Party MP Don Page says on his webpage that his vision for the electorate is to create a sustainable future for the whole community,’ Dr Kaye said. ‘[Mr Page] says he understands that this is about creating jobs by protecting the environment. The challenge for Mr Page is to show he is serious about the environment and local jobs by supporting our push for 100 per cent renewable NSW. Starting the transition now means that regional NSW can get ahead of the global competition and become leaders in clean energy solutions.’ When asked if he supports Dr Kaye’s 100 per cent renewable push, Mr Page told The Echo, ‘I stand by my long-standing commitment to renewable energy. Indeed I was a keynote speaker at a conference in Bangalow a few years ago, specifically on the importance of renewable energy to our future. Clearly it will take some time to transition to a 100 per cent renewables situation given both the Commonwealth and state objectives are to get to 20 per cent by 2020. I would like to see the Ballina electorate better those targets, which is entirely possible given our interest in renewables, the employment opportunities associated with such a focus, and not to mention the abundance of sunshine! I think our area can be a leader in renewables.’ Transmission line abandoned The challenge comes as a proposed high-voltage transmission line from Tenterfield to Lismore was cancelled last week. The abandonment of the $250 million Bonshaw line, once dubbed ‘essential’ by electricity network provider TransGrid, is a victory for grassroots campaigning and follows on the heels of the cancellation of a similar line on the mid-north coast in April. Dr Kaye will make his 100 per cent renewable presentation at the at the Ballina RSL Club on November 6 from 5.30pm and also at the Mullum Civic Centre on Thursday November 7 from 6pm. The state government’s overhaul of planning laws, tabled in NSW Parliament on October 22, has been finally supported by the state’s peak body representing 152 shire councils, Local Government NSW.
It’s the most significant planning overhaul in several decades, yet was continually criticised by environmental and civil liberties groups who claimed the draft legislation favoured fast-track developments and lacked community input. And while Local Government NSW also shared many of those views, president Cr Keith Rhoades AFSM said in a statement his organisation ‘achieved significant amendments’ to the draft policy prior to it being introduced. They include sustainable development, community inclusion, biodiversity conservation, natural resource management and retaining heritage protections. ‘[Planning] Minister Hazzard has listened to the concerns of councils and communities alike and included sustainable development in the upfront objectives of the Act and triple-bottom-line considerations in merit-assessable development applications, which will still be dealt with by councils. ‘What’s more, the Bill’s underpinning objectives now also recognise biodiversity conservation, natural resource management including agricultural land, and retain the same heritage protections as the current Act.’ Meanwhile Mr Hazzard told Parliament on October 23 that ‘The Greens should be on board with that concept. They cannot have it both ways: either we are backing the councils and the communities or we are not.’ The minister also had a swipe at media reporting, saying his new laws have been ‘misinterpreted by some members of the media.’ ‘The bottom line is that code-assessable development will be available across the state, across all of Sydney. It will be up to the councils and the community to determine whether they want code-assessable development.’ For more visit www.planning.nsw.gov.au. The NSW government’s draft controversial planning reforms were overwhelmingly rejected at the Local Government NSW (LGNSW) 2013 annual conference, held in Sydney last week.
It’s the latest thumbs-down for the NSW coalition’s plans, which critics say will strip the rights of communities to reject inappropriate developments. LGNSW is the peak body representing the state’s 152 councils, and Byron Shire councillors Di Woods and Alan Hunter both attended the conference. The conference’s outcome saw LGNSW delegates agree that community participation should be enshrined ‘at all stages of planning’. Serious flaws They also voted to, ‘Express strong concern about the removal of community consultation from any stage of the planning process and call on the NSW government to ensure all planning considerations are made with infrastructure commitments, for example childcare and transport etc.’ It was also decided to advocate that, ‘Councils are given equal status to the minister for planning and infrastructure in planning decisions,’ and that developments have ‘triple-bottom-line outcomes for planning decisions.’ Meanwhile Nature Conservation Council CEO Pepe Clarke was in Byron Bay last Friday, launching a new report – available at nccnsw.org.au – that he says, ‘exposes serious flaws in the draft Planning Bill 2013.’ He says, ‘Under the new laws, developers would have new rights to override local plans and challenge council zoning decisions, placing existing environmental protections at risk. In addition, State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP), which contain protections for sensitive environmental areas including koala habitat and rainforest, will cease to exist under the new planning system. ‘The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has raised concerns about the broad, unfettered discretion given to key decision makers, including the minister for planning and the director-general of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.’ Recently Byron Bay-based NSW coalition MP for local government and the north coast, Don Page, told The Echo he relayed community concerns about the planning overhaul to planning MP Brad Hazzard. NSW Business Chamber’s input As for input from the NSW Business Chamber: they gave feedback to the Green Paper in December last year. The Chamber said then that ‘at the local level, councillors should still have a role in leading the community in the development of broad planning policies and principles for a local area’, but added that ‘the development of Local Land Use Plans will need to be oversighted by the department of planning… to ensure that they are consistent with subregional, metropolitan and NSW plans and policies.’ The controversial legislation, which so far has gained little to no public support, is due to be debated in parliament next month. Unified government and industry rhetoric regarding a looming liquid natural gas (LNG) shortage has increased after the NSW government’s Energy Security Summit was held last week in Sydney. The pro-coal-and-gas message was loud and clear, while little to no mention was made of renewable options. NSW resources and energy minister Chris Hartcher said in his opening address, ‘Coal and gas contribute over 90 per cent of NSW’s energy needs,’ but, ‘still gives us the best opportunity to get back to energy security... Alternative sources of energy that could take the place of gas are not ready to come online.’ Adding to the pressure to drill is new coalition federal industry minister Ian Macfarlane, who told media last week the production of CSG in NSW is his number one priority. Meanwhile corporations are also ramping up against opposition to gas production; on their website, gas giant AGL threatened the pub- lic that: ‘Continuing to say “no” to natural gas development in NSW will have significant consequence for industry, manufacturers and households in that state.’ But is this just gold-plated rhetoric from fossil fuel companies eager to tap the lucrative overseas market? So far many of the talking points have not differentiated domestic and export markets, making the argument for expansion vague and potentially misleading. According to a report by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER), NSW is way behind in LNG projects compared to other states and is only supplying five per cent of its own supply. ‘Historical low-priced domestic gas contracts will progressively expire over the next five years. Contract replacement activity is expected to peak in QLD in 2015−16, and in NSW and Victoria in 2018... the expiration of low-priced contracts and their renegotiation in a market exposed to global prices will continue to place pressure on domestic prices.’ Demand for the state is not increasing However AER’s State of the energy market 2012 released last December also goes on to say that domestic demand for the state is not increasing. ‘Gas flows into NSW from July 2008 to July 2012 appear to be steady, that is no fluctuation.’ But a solution offered to protecting NSW from the expected 2018 gas price hike comes from NSW Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham. In a SMH opinion piece last week, he suggests the government, ‘regulate the gas market so that domestic gas demand is fulfilled before LNG exports are allowed.’ He added Western Australia has already implemented this. ‘Australians should not have to pay the price because these large gas companies have gambled in investing in LNG export terminals and export contracts before having secured a social licence or approvals to extract massive amounts of coal seam gas.’ The Echo asked Mr Hartcher’s office if Mr Buckingham’s suggestion would ensure energy security for the state and the reply was, ‘Given NSW produces just five per cent of its gas needs, Mr Buckingham would be wise to point out what gas in NSW is intended for the export market.’ When asked the same question, state MP for the seat of Ballina, Don Page, said that was a matter for the cabinet and he was not in a position to comment at this time. But Mr Page did claim much progress was being made in renewable energy. ‘Recently as acting minister for the environment I signed the contracts with AGL to build Australia’s biggest solar energy plants. ‘One is at Nyngan with a 102 megawatt capacity and the other near Broken Hill with a 53 megawatt capacity. ‘They will supply power to our grid by the end of 2015 for 50,000 homes. ‘The NSW government contributed $65m towards this project, which will create 450 jobs during construction. ‘Since 2011, 70,000 house- holds have installed solar power. ‘On CSG, the only sup- plier based in NSW is AGL which through their Camden gas project supplies five per cent of our NSW gas needs, the rest being imported from other states.’ Does the NSW coalition government support holiday letting in residential areas or not?
It’s a question NSW Greens MP and former Byron Shire mayor Jan Barham says she has been waiting three years for an answer on, and on August 12 she got one from tourism MP George Souris (Nationals). Well, sort of. In a recent general purpose standing committee held in parliament, Mr Souris was asked whether he supported ‘legitimate tourism operators’ or those ‘who operate without approvals, safety provisions for visitors and without paying their way to local government.’ Mr Souris replied to Ms Barham after some stalling that ‘Holiday letting in NSW is essentially a local government issue,’ and referred to the recently introduced holiday rental code of conduct, introduced by the industry with help from NSW department of Trade and Investment and Destination NSW. He claims councils have at their disposal a range of regulatory mechanisms to deal with matters such as noise pollution issues. ‘These can usually be addressed by existing regulation; for example, under the protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, councils and communities are encouraged to utilise these mechanisms as appropriate.’ But MP Paul Green from the Christian Democratic Party made the point during Mr Souris’s questioning that ‘Local government is an arm of the state government, as we well know, so obviously its master should be watching over it to ensure that it is able to enact or empower those regulations that the state makes.’ It should be noted that the general purpose standing committee transcript is an uncorrected proof. Dept of planning replies on HL As for the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure position, a spokesperson told The Echo the department ‘worked with industry and other government departments to develop a self-regulatory code of conduct for use by owners, managers, guests and visitors of holiday let properties.’ ‘The department is continuing to work with councils and industry on this issue and has recently attended meetings with industry representatives and concerned residents of Byron Bay.’ The former Byron Council staffer and now manager of the state government-owned private enterprise, North Coast Holiday Parks (NCHP), has hit back at claims his parks do not contribute back to the community since he took over administration from Byron Shire Council in 2006.
But questions still remain as to why Council’s financial returns are extraordinarly lower than before the takeover. NCHP general manager Jim Bolger told The Echo that a major amount is paid directly back into the Shire via Council. ‘Other amounts paid for reserve maintenance and or improvement by NCHP vary from year to year determined by the work needed to be performed. Plans for the upgrades of the day use reserves in Brunswick Heads will be exhibited toward the end of this year. These plans will identify extensive improvement works to be funded from caravan park revenue.’ The questions come after a recent press release by a public relations company on behalf of NCHP that claimed, ‘guests can be confident that the profits from the dollars they invest are returned to the people of NSW and their coastal recreation zones.’ Council’s media officer confirmed that in 2011/12 the amount paid by NCHP for three Brunswick Heads caravan parks was $196,818, and is listed under the ‘Open Space And Recreation Program’ in the budget. As a comparison to when Council managed the parks over ten years ago, Council’s 2001/2002 annual report says that The Terrace Park generated $380,000, Massey Greene $270,000 and the Ferry Reserve $121,200, equalling a profit of $771,200. Another snapshot a few years later in 2003/2004 reveal a higher figure of $860,653. Council’s community infrastructure executive manager, Phil Holloway, said the income was spent across all Council reserves as per a 2007 agreement with the then-called North Coast Crown Lands Division. ‘Council also receives income for Crown reserve works from the paid parking on Main Beach, Byron Bay, and fees from market licences.’ He says the funds can only be expended on works in the area to which the income was generated. Is local MP Don Page the minister for, or against, local government?
That’s the question posed by the peak body representing NSW councils after Mr Page refused to support the inclusion of local government or councils in the Australian Constitution. It comes in response to the upcoming referendum on the topic, to be included with the September election. Currently councils are an operational arm of state governments and only two tiers of government are recognised in our constitution. Councils currently receive the majority of their funding from municipal rates and council fees, but also receive grants and subsidies from state and territory governments. There is also direct federal funding via initiatives such as the Roads to Recovery program, the Regional Development Fund and Low Carbon Communities, but the legality of some of these grants has been challenged in the High Court. The court cases have prompted the referendum in a deal brokered by the Greens/independents and Labor at the last election. Mr Page told ABC radio last week, ‘You could easily envisage a situation where a couple of marginal seats in a federal election would be benefited by large cash injections from the Commonwealth on the eve of the election to fund a particular piece of infrastructure. So you would have a large amount of money going to a project that was for political reasons but wasn’t actually part of the state plan.’ Those comments prompted an outraged response from Local Government NSW’s joint presidents Cr Ray Donald and Cr Keith Rhoades AFSM, who accused Mr Page of ‘scaremongering and ill-informed information’ that is ‘misleading the people of NSW.’ ‘Given the recent TCorp report into NSW council finances,’ Cr Donald said, ‘it’s astounding the NSW coalition government won’t support a practical change to the Constitution securing tens of millions of dollars each year for NSW communities and their infrastructure.’ Cr Rhoades added, ‘It seems a tad contradictory for the NSW coalition government to trumpet criticism of councils’ financial sustainability, then fail to support a referendum which would protect federal grants for the most basic community needs, like local roads.’ O’Farrell’s reasoning But in a letter from NSW premier Barry O’Farrell to then federal minister for local government, Simon Crean, Mr O’Farrell outlines his reasoning for objecting to recognition. ‘The NSW government is of the view that amendments to the Constitution should not be made in the absence of clear evidence that existing funding arrangements are deficient. ‘While the government acknowledged that the High Court’s decision in Pape and Williams may have cast some doubt on the appropriateness of the direct funding of local government by the Commonwealth, it is noted that neither the Expert Panel’s report nor the Joint Select Committee interim report have identified any new significant issues with the financial arrangements that currently exist between all three tiers of government.’ Mr O’Farrell also says the amendment, as proposed in the committee’s interim report, will allow the federal government to grant funds directly to local government, ‘which could result in NSW 2021 and other major state policies being sidetracked or not given due regard… ‘This could also raise expectations that the Commonwealth could intervene in local government administration, thereby creating confusion about all tiers of government and responsibilities… it blurs the line of accountability.’ Instead, Mr O’Farrell says he supports ‘symbolic recognition as a way of enhancing the status of local governments.’ Meanwhile Mr Page hit back at the LGNSW joint presidents, telling The Echo they have known about the letter for months and, with an election for the LGNSW presidency coming up in October, that ‘might explain Keith Rhoads’s behaviour!’ He added local government is already recognised in the NSW Constitution. Unsurprisingly it’s sparked divided opinions across state and federal parties; however, Victoria, along with NSW, has rejected it so far. Federal Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce said Thursday that his party will support it, and that a caveat in the amendment to section 96 ensures that authorisation from the state is required for councils to collect money from the federal government. ‘It is the lowest-taxing level of government and rates go straight back into the facilities and services used by that community.’ And Greens MLC and former Byron Shire mayor Jan Barham told The Echo she supports inclusion as it ‘plays a crucial role in the democracy of Australia.’ She says direct transfers from a federal level have been very successful, and that ‘Other funding programs that are directed via the state governments result in a loss of direct funding to councils with the state administration costs of approximately 22 per cent without genuine benefit to the community.’ Altered constitution As for the two amendments, or alterations, it’s just 17 words and can be found at http://regional.gov.au. Section 96’s heading is ‘Financial assistance to states’ and it is proposed to be changed to ‘Financial assistance to states and local government bodies.’ Additionally, section 96 itself would be altered to read, ‘During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any state, or to any local government body formed by a law of a state, on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.’ The long awaited and overdue regional rail study released last week has been met with a hostile reception from rail advocate Karin Kolbe while local state MP Don Page has distanced himself from previous election promises.
The report, entitled Casino to Murwillumbah Transport Study, recommends that services remain suspended and ‘rail assets be maintained to a minimum standard only’. It comes in at 130 pages, cost $2 million and is available at http://bit.ly/15Lo2Du. The Echo understands that the report’s findings have prompted the state government to shelve any plans to re-instate regional rail services which were discontinued by the then Labor state government in 2004. Current transport minister Gladys Berejiklian says her government will now consider the findings, ‘as part of our work to finalise the Northern Rivers Regional Transport Plan which we expect to be completed this year.’ But Trains On Our Tracks (TOOT) president Karin Kolbe has called for the report to be scrapped and says it’s a ‘whitewash’. ‘The report relies on old and irrelevant maintenance and patronage figures and costs from 2004 to justify a 2013 decision,’ she says. Even at the time the study was announced in 2011, Ms Kolbe criticised its terms of reference, which failed to identify any social or environmental benefits. Mr Page however said last year on ABC radio (June 26, 2012) that he asked his government and minister to ‘broaden the terms of reference of the feasibility study to make it beyond any doubt that the benefits of rail services on the Murwillumbah to Casino line will be properly analysed by the project team.’ These included ‘environmental benefits’, ‘fewer people using cars’ and ‘less greenhouse gases’. There is little to no reference to those terms within the report. Commitments vary from election to election The report was a major election commitment for local Ballina MP Don Page, who released a carefully worded media statement at the time saying, ‘the NSW government is committed to providing the right mix of transport services.’ But back in 2007, all regional Nationals MPs were photographed (see back page) wearing t-shirts with the words ‘Yes, you can have your trains back.’ When asked about pre-election commitments to bring trains back in 2007, Mr Page told The Echo, ‘Any commitment made prior to the 2007 election relates to being elected to government in 2007, which didn’t happen. Prior to the 2011 election we committed to doing the feasibility study, which we have honoured.’ In response, Ms Kolbe said, ‘After running hard on the rail question for so many years, many electors did not pick up the subtle shift from “you can have a train” to “you can have a study”.’ As for questions regarding his assessment of the report, a commitment to light rail, or the lack of environmental provisions that he called for, Mr Page did not respond. Meanwhile, Ms Berejiklian, says that ‘The study recommends investigating improving bus services to provide more people with frequent, cost effective public transport to key destinations, rather than reinstating the rail line.’ Light rail eliminated Astoundingly, light rail transit was eliminated during preliminary assessment, and instead the study focused on heavy, or freight, rail. A Transport for NSW spokesperson told The Echo light rail was not explored for a number of reasons. ‘We found light rail would not provide additional benefits to the rail shuttle option and is less effective over longer distances (greater than 20km). ‘A local Byron Bay shuttle was considered; however, we found regular bus services between Sunrise Beach, Byron and Suffolk Park would provide a better and more flexible public transport service.’ Lack of sustainability Despite the spokesperson claiming that ‘All options considered by the study were subject to a sustainability assessment,’ there is only one small reference to sustainability. Under ‘Rating Against Sustainability’, the report claims returning the XPT extension to Murwillumbah is ‘expected to have a minor positive sustainability impact.’ And for a Casino to Murwillumbah rail shuttle (light rail), it again claimed a ‘very minor shift [is] predicted from car to the more sustainable public transport mode.’ The word ‘sustainability’ only appears three times throughout the document. Similarly, the words ‘climate change’ are absent. And even in its terms of reference on page 100, it claims incorrectly that ‘The study represents a broadening of the previously announced engineering and cost evaluation to include consideration of economic, social and environmental benefits.’ Regardless of the report’s failure to address rail’s environmental benefits, it provides an insight into future growth projections for the region. It claims, ‘Future growth in the region will occur in the Tweed region, extending southwards along the coast to Ballina. Lismore, Tweed and Ballina are the defined long term major regional centres.’ Also, ‘The population of the northern rivers is estimated to grow to around 367,000 in 2031 with an increase in housing units from 129,000 to 161,000 (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2012). The majority of growth will be experienced in the coastal corridor in the area between Ballina and Byron, and in particular along the Tweed coast and in Tweed Heads.’ Radical changes that would see a ‘fundamental shift’ in power from local councils to the state government have been blasted by NSW’s peak representative body, Local Government NSW (LGNSW).
And despite the reforms being now on hold, the minister responsible for local government, local Ballina MP Don Page, was accused of failing to consult LGNSW at an urgent meeting held on March 15. Additionally, detail on the Early Intervention Bill is vague and lacks detail, says joint president of LGNSW, Cr Keith Rhoades AFSM. ‘If passed, this legislation will undermine the democratic responsibilities of mayors and councils elected by residents and ratepayers by making councils responsible to the minister,’ he said. ‘The lack of detail and broad scope for the ‘Performance Improvement Order’ criteria is extremely worrying. The NSW government needs to give a clearer definition of what constitutes a ‘non-functioning’ and ‘noneffective’ council.’ Presently, councils can only be dismissed by the NSW governor if a public inquiry has been held and if the minister for local government recommends the dismissal. There are 152 NSW local government bodies and Mr Page told parliament there were, ‘no less than 10 cases’ that cost millions in recent years.’ [Hansard transcription] Additionally he says, ‘for the first time in 17 years, there are no councils under administration’. So why is this such a priority? Mr Page told The Echo, ‘We have had a small number of councils who have become dysfunctional and if this legislation had been in place the problems would have been sorted out. ‘For example last year a Sydney council had a group of councillors who kept walking out of the chamber so a quorum could not be maintained and matters could not be dealt with. This went on for many months! ‘There is currently no provision in the Local Government Act to deal with such a situation. By being able to nip problems in the bud there will be fewer dismissals in future.’ The power to suspend a whole council already exists in a number of other jurisdictions including Western Australia and Queensland Mr Page told parliament. [Hansard transcription, February 26, 2013] He also referenced a recently published NSW auditor-general’s report, Monitoring Local Government, which, ‘also supported the need for government to have greater powers in tackling poor performance.’ The amendment While the lengthy 26 page amendment to the Local Government Act includes much detail on what powers the state wants, it’s sparse on how councils can appeal. One notable proposal is a ‘consultation period of not less than 21 days,’ for submissions. And being suspended means a total lockout – there would be no pay or ‘use of council facilities’. The amendment, available at http://bit.ly/XqZHKZ, would enable the minister for local government or the director general to demand documents about the council, its operations or its activities; enable the minister to issue ‘performance improvement order’ to enable the minister to suspend a council for a period of up to three months or more,’ provide for the appointment of interim administrators; and to allow other minor and miscellaneous amendments. Page’s response As for the Local Government NSW claims of not being consulted, Mr Page told The Echo his department has had three consultations so far, ‘Two as minister with the presidents and one at officer level, with more to come. We are working through the issues and I have no intention of rushing the Bill through. ‘Effectively it’s on hold while we conclude our discussions, which have been very constructive. ‘LGNSW received the Bill on February 14 and raised no concerns until recently. ‘The processes provided before a performance improvement order are being worked through by the government and LGNSW. ‘Notwithstanding, the minister must give notice of a performance improvement order, state exactly what the problem is – not just to the council but publicly – and the council has 21 days to say what they are going to do to improve. ‘After saying what they propose to do they have time to carry out their plan. It is only if they refuse to solve the problem after all the requests etc have been made that a minister can consider the three month suspension option. ‘The things that could trigger an order to improve would be non-compliance with state legislation etc or continual refusal to allow a quorum to be formed preventing council from operating.’ He also denies it’s a power grab. ‘To the contrary – it’s a sensible means of addressing problems before they get to a point where after a long period of dysfunction a public inquiry is ordered and a council is sacked, which is the only option now when dysfunction occurs.’ Railroaded Shadow NSW Labor local government minister Sophie Cotsis told The Echo that what is being proposed is a ‘new section, not an amendment.’ She says she is ‘getting letters from residents about this, and the government should be worried.’ ‘They tried to ram this through despite the act being reviewed,’ she said, referring to the Local Government Act 1993, a review of which is due in September. She claims that 27 councils and mayors across Sydney have also discussed the proposals at a recent meeting. ‘They feel railroaded,’ she said. Former mayor, independent state and federal member Ted Mack told Fairfax last week, ‘If the government thinks this approach is worthwhile, why stop at local government? ‘Why not give agencies such as the ombudsman, the auditor-general or the ICAC the power to issue ‘performance improvement orders’ against poorly performing state government ministers, with the authority to make recommendations to the governor that these ministers be dismissed if they fail to comply?’ |
Categories
All
Archives
November 2014
|