From: wr_lizandscottAThotmailDOTcom
To: jayneDOTbatesATbigpondDOTcom
Subject: RE: Recission Motion – Item 13.3
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 10:32:33 +0930

Dear Mayor Bates:

I wish to make a comment to you with regard to a recent email posted by Andy Gilfillan, and to comment about the up-coming Recission Motion you will be asked to vote on.

The Motion contained in Item 13.3 of last Council Agenda was based, in my opinion, on several pieces of flawed information.

1. The concept of “outcomes” of the MPLAG process.

Information from several LAG members over the past many years (including the Encounter Project) shows that the LAG was required to submit advice and opinion bothpositive and negative to Government agencies, but NOT to vote.

The LAG was never intended to supply “outcomes”, and never did, until its last meeting in which the process was hijacked by political and interest groups.

Thus the perceived basis of Motion 13.3 is on a false premise.

2. There is a perception within the Motion that KIMAG is representative of the original LAG. This is not true.

There is no recognised scientific or environmental representation on this group, which basically represents a sector of the community which is socially, economically, or politically ideologically opposed to the concept of Marine Protected Areas.

There is evidence from various “public meetings”, as well as from past LAG meetings, that members of this group appear to have attempted to reduce to the absolute minimum the extent and placement of all Sanctuary Zones proposals.

It is of particular importance to note that more than half of the 15 LAG members are NOT represented on KIMAG. You can only wonder why.

3. In his letter to Councillors Mr Gilfillan attempts to establish a link between the LAG as set up by Minister Caica and KIMAG as set up by various vested interest groups.

The two groups are NOT synonymous, and have different objectives.

KIMAG advice and KILAG advice are two separate issues. Whilst it would have been good for Council to uphold the work and advice of the LAG over the past years, KIMAG is neither representative of the whole community nor authorised as representative of the original LAG.

4. Mr Gilfillan also attempts to make connections between LAG members and Eco Action.

Eco-Action was never represented on LAG. Search of Eco Action Incorporated minutes shows that LAG issues were not on the agenda. The simple fact that some LAG members may have been also members of EcoAction is irrelevant, as the charter of the LAG group clearly required its members to be objective in their work (which sadly no longer seems to be the case).

In Conclusion,

I believe that Council was not fully or properly informed when asked to vote on Motion 13.3 .

It is significant that the Motion, which Councillors were not given time to research or even digest, was prepared well in advance of Mr Gilfillan’s deputation, suggesting the possibility of collusion in order to pre-empt a result.

By voting in favour of the Motion the Council has delegated its voice to a vested interest group, which had no constitution, no charter, and no stated purpose,  to the exclusion of being open to the voices of the whole community.

This is un-democratic. I believe that it was not becoming of a truly representative Council, and that it should be undone.

This will provide Councillors with an opportunity to do their own research and to form a position which truly reflects both the Island Community’s views and the factual evidence about MPAs and Sanctuary Zones.

Scott McDonald
“The Wallaby Run”
P.O. Box 768
Penneshaw 5222
08 8553 7167

Councillor Graham Walkom

Question on Notice for the 9^th May 2012 KI Council Meeting

In recent audit committee meetings of council I have raised the concern that whilst rates are consistently increasing for island ratepayers at a rate well above [Consumer Price Index] (CPI +5.71%, [which would translate to an increase of] $427,000 likely for the coming year), more than this amount then goes to increased employee costs : +16.04%, or up $538,301 likely for the coming year 2012/13.

The size of this increase is not unique to the next budget and appears to support a very substantial community view that their council administration (as distinct from outdoor employees) is excessive and a key reason for the declining standard of expenditure on our roads. As a councillor I get more grizzles about this issue than any other.

As it is intended to brief ratepayers at community meetings in May and to encourage them to comment on the budget:

Q1. What information will be advised to ratepayers at these consultation sessions about these ballooning employee costs?

Q2. What action is intended to be taken to proportion employee costs adjustments in line with other council expenses?

Q3. If all council expenditure increased in proportion to employee costs, what percentage rates increase would ratepayers expect for the 2012/13 year?

Cr Graham Walkom

[Published in The Islander 2012.05.03]

With a population of just over 4,000, we are fortunate to have two established banks with a long- standing commitment to the community. Both existing banks support the community through employment and sponsorships. Some smaller SA towns do have more banks than us, but without exception these are towns which provide services for a wider area of smaller population centres. That is not true here. People are not going to come from Delamere and Yankalilla to do their banking in Kingscote.

Unless large numbers of island residents who currently bank on the mainland suddenly decide to bank here if a branch of the Bendigo Bank opens, most of the new bank’s business will come from the existing two banks, both of which are only marginally profitable.

The argument for a community bank is that profits are shared with the local community. But profits have to be made before they can be shared.

Bendigo Community Banks are franchises. A fee of $16 – $20 thousand is paid to the Bendigo Bank every year, regardless of whether the local bank makes a profit. Then the bank takes fifty per cent of profits, if there are any. The rest is distributed between local shareholders and the community.

Franchise consultant Rod Young says a successful franchise is one in which 90% of new businesses have repaid their start-up costs and are making a profit within five years. But sixty-three out of one hundred and ninety three Bendigo Community banks – one third – made a loss in 2010. By normal business standards, this is not a successful franchise model. Young says that Bendigo is expanding its network at the expense of local investors.

Retired auditor John Williams agrees. As well as the sixty-six branches which made a loss, Williams says there are another forty which are borderline – not making a loss, but not returning anything to investors or community. Twenty community banks have lost all their investor capital and are being propped up by commercial rate loans from Bendigo.

To give just a few examples from the 2010 financial year, the Edenhope branch, which opened in 2003, had accumulated losses of $193,000 and a negative cash flow of $66,000 per annum. Augusta in Western Australia opened in 2005 and had accumulated losses of $245,000 and a negative cash flow of $57,000. Ettagong in NSW opened in 2005 and had lost nearly $900,000 – $200,000 more than its total investor capital. The Robe branch opened in 2003. In 2010 it had accumulated losses of $330,000, and a negative cash flow of $58,000 per year.

Andrew McGauchie, a former board member of the Alice Springs branch, said the bank had lost almost the entire $840,000 of start-up funds invested by locals. “I used to think this was a great idea,” he said “but not now.” He has transferred his accounts back to his former bank and says he doubts he will ever get back the money he was persuaded to invest.

There are success stories. Cummins is one. But to suggest the results from Cummins are typical or could be expected here is misleading. The successes are mostly wealthy rural communities which have no other banking facilities. Kangaroo Island is not a wealthy community and already has two banks.

If the establishment of a Community/Bendigo Bank goes ahead, there are three possible outcomes.

First, all three banks remain open. All three make a loss. Over time the locally invested community bank capital is lost. The bank is never able to repay its start-up costs. No money is returned to the community.

Second, after a few years, one of the other banks closes. A few years after that, the community bank edges its way to marginal profitability. But it is many more years before it is able to repay its start-up and capital costs, if ever. The franchise fee still has to be paid to the Bendigo Bank. Returns to the community are minimal or non-existent.

Third, the community bank attracts so much business from the other banks that both ANZ and Bank SA branches on the island close. This is the only scenario in which it is likely that the new bank will be consistently profitable. A few years after the other banks close it will start to make some returns to the community. But this scenario also means considerable inconvenience for those who bank with the ANZ or Bank SA, loss of employment for those who work there, and no choice in banking for any island resident or business.

None of these outcomes is positive for Kangaroo Island.

Peter Wales, Kangaroo Island

A shorter version of this letter was published in The Islander

oil-exploration_west_of_KI

This is the area which has been set aside for oil and gas drilling by the Federal government.
Now keep in mind seven simple things:

1. Trouble happens, whatever plans made – think of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, in April 2010.
2. A drill under sea is a hole through a particularly thin layer of earth crust, prone to unexpectedly enlarge from hole to large gap – think quakes.
3. You can’t easily access down there in deep water a troublesome drill – think storms.
4. When oil gushes out, it is transported by currents to pollute far and away – think home…
5. These currents flow from the drilling area towards Kangaroo Island, along both the north and south coasts – think oil slick everywhere…
6. That kind of damage is ecologically irreversible (most of the Gulf of Mexico is practically a dead or sick zone now) – think disaster zone.
7. Once polluted, Kangaroo Island is economically dead – think selling your home or business at crushed prices (if you can…) and moving away.

Many people are not aware of this highest level threat to Kangaroo Island and the whole surrounding area, despite the very informative post created in July 2011 by Geoff and Margi Prideaux, part of the network of wardens of the Island’s whales and other cetaceans (and also makers of an excellent sour dough bread, by the way).

So here it is, copied as is. Read it slowly, ponder the implications… and use the sample letter to write to the Federal minister who approved all this. This decision needs to be reversed, it’s a major matter of life and death.

Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island
*****************************************

Oil risk too high for Kangaroo Island

On Friday 8th July 2011, the Bight Petroleum Corporation was granted permits to explore for oil and gas by Federal Minster for Resources, Energy and Tourism, Martin Ferguson.

While the decision to grant the permits to explore the region west of Kangaroo Island is disappointing, we can still use our Federal environment laws to influence the outcome. Extra ‘conditions’ have been applied to these permits and this is a signal that we still have some opportunity to ensure that the risks of seismic testing and eventually an oil rig are contained. The Bight Petroleum Corporation must be made to jump through some difficult hoops.

How the Government reacts to the next stage of the process will tell us if they are serious about protecting Kangaroo Island’s tourism, fisheries and marine environment.

We believe influencing the Minister now is incredibly important and we urge anyone who is personally interested to send a letter or email to Minister Burke urging that he should fully use these environment laws to fully assess the impact of what Bight Petroleum Corp proposes.

A draft letter

We have drafted a letter that everyone is free to use as it stands or as a guide. Either open this letter in your own email browser, copy and paste the letter or email below or simply use this as a starting point for your own letter or email.

The Hon Tony Burke MP
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Telephone: (02) 6277 7640
Fax: (02) 6273 6101
Email: Tony.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au

Dear Minister Burke,
We have heard and have concerns that the Bight Petroleum Corp has been granted a permit to explore for oil and gas off the west coast of Kangaroo Island (permit areas EPP41 and EPP42).

This is a region of critical importance to both Kangaroo Island’s fishing communities (commercial and recreational) and the wildlife associated with the Island’s ecotourism industry.

We are alarmed that we have had no say in this process for such a risk placed on our doorstep.

We understand that you have the option to decide that Bight Petroleum Corp’s activities are a ‘Controlled Action’ and that you can determine their assessment should be through an ‘Environmental Impact Statement’ or ‘Public Environment Report’ or else by a ‘Public Inquiry’.

We urge you to decide that this level of assessment is applied and that your decisions are based on solid technical and scientific evidence, not the company’s promises; that you verify that there will be no impact from exploration or extraction.

The petroleum industry’s track record of oil spills gives us no confidence that we can rely on anything less than your full and robust assessment. We urge you to use the full weight of Australia’s environment legislation.

Yours sincerely,

More information

The following information is provided to help anyone wishing to influence the Governments process to ensure they fully use Australia’s Federal environment laws to fully assess the impact of what Bight Petroleum Corp proposes.

Quick links

The legal process explained
Two phases of operation: exploration and then extraction
The risks: from extreme noise pollution to oil spills
The importance of the Kangaroo Island Pool, Canyons and Eyre Peninsula Upwellings
Formal detail of the granted permits
Useful links

The legal process explained

We have a window coming to use our Federal environment laws and to influence Federal Environment Minister, Tony Burke to get the best possible outcome we can. How Minister Burke reacts to the next stage of the process will tell us if the Federal Government is serious about protecting the Island’s tourism, fisheries and marine environment.

Bight Petroleum Corp now has to submit what is called a referral to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999. This referral needs to meet certain standards, and to explain how the company will reduce risks. However, the standards are typically quite low, and the oil and gas industry has not experienced much scrutiny at this stage. We have no way of knowing when Bight Petroleum Corp will submit their referral. It could be in a week. It could be six months.

There are two points of influence we can have right now. The first is that Minister Burke needs to hear from the Island that we want him to fully use these environment laws to fully assess the impact of what Bight Petroleum Corp proposes. This means we want the Minister to decide that Bight Petroleum Corp’s activities are what is called a ‘Controlled Action’ and that we want a transparent assessment through what the legislation calls an ‘Environmental Impact Statement’ or ‘Public Environment Report’ or else by a ‘Public Inquiry’.

Anything less than these formal options and Minister Ferguson’s assurances that we can trust the Government will be shown to be hollow and meaningless.

The second point of influence is more technical and difficult. When Bight Petroleum Corp submits their referral, it will be posted on the Government website and comments from the public and experts will be invited. There will be only 10 working days to do this. We are preparing a comment and would welcome hearing from others wishing to do so as well.

We believe that influencing the Minister now is incredibly important and we urge anyone who is personally interested to send a letter or email to Minister Burke urging that he should fully use these environment laws to assess the impact of what Bight Petroleum Corp proposes.

back

Two phases of operation: exploration and then extraction

The Bight Petroleum Corporation need to apply for two separate phases of operation. Their ‘exploration phase’ is the first and is what is being considered now. During this phase, they are exploring to see if there is a good potential to find oil and gas. If they complete this phase and believe there is a good potential they will find oil and gas, they will then apply to set up whichever rigs and shipping they deem appropriate. This is known as the ‘extraction phase’.

We need to know that the Government will make their decision about how Bight Petroleum can operate in both of the phases through an Environmental Impact Statement, Public Environment Report or a Public Inquiry. Anything less than these options and the Governments assurances will be shown to be hollow and meaningless.

The risks: from extreme noise pollution to oil spills

When they are still in their ‘exploration phase’, the risk involved relate to very high pressure and potentially destructive noise, detectable within the water column.

The petroleum industry uses a technique which involves projecting high-energy sound pulses into the water column to generate seismic waves that can penetrate into the earth’s crust beneath the sea. The sound waves that reflect back can then be studied to show geological structures of types often associated with petroleum deposits.

Pneumatic air-guns are the most common energy source for these so called ‘seismic surveys’, which are usually conducted by towing an array of air-guns just below the sea surface behind a ship.

During seismic surveys, a predominantly low frequency high intensity sound pulse is emitted every few seconds by the array of guns, at a sound pressure level that is determined by the survey. Surveys typically operate 24 hours/day over a period of one or two months. Sound pulses from these surveys are often detectable underwater hundreds of kilometres away.

While the seismic surveys are taking place, fishing vessels and divers will not be permitted in the area. There is solid scientific evidence that the impact of the emitted sound pulses are dangerous to marine mammals and fish species that have air-filled swim bladders. Impacts can range from hearing damage through to death.

When they move into their ‘extraction phase’ noise is no longer the issue. We then enter a risk period of oil spills.

When oil is spilled in the ocean, it initially spreads in the water (primarily on the surface, in a slick sometimes many meters deep), depending on its relative density and composition. The oil slick formed may remain cohesive in calm seas or may break up in rough seas. Waves, water currents and wind can force the oil slick to drift over large areas, impacting the open ocean, coastal areas, marine and terrestrial habitats in the path of the drift.

In the weeks and months following an oil spill, oil that contains volatile organic compounds partially evaporates, losing between 20 and 40 percent of its mass and becoming denser and more viscous (more resistant to flow). The oil residue either disperses in the water or forms a thick mousse with the water. Part of the oil residue may sink to the seabed. Some residue will eventually congeals into sticky tar balls.

Over time, oil residue deteriorates, disintegrates and decomposes through exposure to sunlight and microorganisms. The rate of these processes varies depending on the availability of nutrients, oxygen, and microorganisms, as well as temperature. If oil reaches the shoreline or coast, it interacts with sediments such as beach sand, gravel, rocks, boulders and vegetation. This residue can be toxic to marine and coastal wildlife and has potential far-reaching impacts as it enters the marine food chain.

Oil spills present the potential for enormous harm to deep ocean and coastal fisheries. The immediate effects of toxic and smothering oil waste may cause a mass mortality and contamination of commercial fish, prey species and other marine wildlife. Long-term ecological effects may be worse, interrupting the food chain on which fish, marine mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds depend and on which their reproductive success is based. Commercial fishing enterprises can be affected permanently.

The importance of the Kangaroo Island Pool, Canyons and Eyre Peninsula Upwellings

The Kangaroo Island Pool, Canyons and Eyre Peninsula Upwellings have been studied extensively. The physical, chemical and ecological processes including their importance to primary production as well as the locations of whale aggregations is well known.

Water current patterns for this region rise up from the canyons and shelf break and wrap around the western end of Kangaroo Island flowing across the northern coastline.

The nutrient-rich upwelling in this region enhances the production of plankton communities that support seasonal aggregations of krill, small pelagic fish and squid, which in turn attract sharks, medium and large pelagic and predatory fish (of commercial importance), marine mammals (such as whales, dolphins, and New Zealand fur seals) and seabirds.

This region is of critical importance to both Kangaroo Islands fishing communities (commercial and recreational) and the wildlife associated with the Island’s ecotourism industry.

Formal detail of the granted permits

The following details have been provided by the Australian Government through Minister Ferguson’s announcement.

Minister Ferguson is quoted as saying:

“The exploration activities to be undertaken in the Bight region will also be subject to additional conditions, attached to the two permits, recognising the region’s importance in terms of tourism, agriculture and the marine environment.
“Local communities can have confidence that the highest and most stringent safety standards will apply to exploration, with any future work subject to further environmental and regulatory approval processes.”

Granted Permits

EPP41 (released as S10-1), straddling the Duntroon and Ceduna Sub-basins of the Bight Basin off South Australia, has been awarded to Bight Petroleum Corp. The company proposes a guaranteed work program of 768 km2 of new 3D seismic surveying, bathymetry surveying, geochemical sampling surveying, an exploration well and geotechnical studies to an estimated value of A$63.625m. The secondary work program consists of 1969 km2 of new 3D seismic surveying, two exploration wells and geotechnical studies to an estimated value of A$156.2m. There was one other bid for this area.

EPP42 (released as S10-2), straddling the Duntroon and Ceduna Sub-basins of the Bight Basin off South Australia, has been awarded to Bight Petroleum Corp. The company proposes a guaranteed work program of 235 km of new 2D swath seismic surveying, bathymetry surveying, geochemical sampling surveying and geotechnical studies at an estimated value of A$3.975m. The secondary work program consists of an exploration well, 405 km of new 2D swath seismic surveying and geotechnical studies to an estimated value of A$49.9m. There were no other bids for this area.

Additional Conditions

In addition to the standard exploration permit terms and conditions, the permits awarded to Bight Petroleum Corporation are subject to the following conditions:

1. a well-design and integrity-monitoring plan to assure well integrity within each well drilled, to include detail of maintenance for the active life of the well including quarterly compliance reporting;
2. independent certification by the original provider, prior to installation, that each blowout preventer has been satisfactorily tested to design pressures;
3. a report detailing hydrocarbon spill mitigation technologies and risk mitigation processes that it will deploy throughout the drill and maintain for the active life of the well; and
4. a report delineating relevant operational risks identified and associated risk mitigation strategies and processes that will be deployed by the permittee and any third party contractors involved in the drilling operation.

Useful links

1. Map of all the acreage leases just granted
2. Bight Petroleum’s website
3. EPBC Act environment assessment process
4. Minister Ferguson’s permit announcement
5. Australian Maritime Safety Authority comment about the impacts of oil spills
6. Scientific paper on the impacts of the Prestige oil spill on lobster, fin fish and shrimp fisheries in the Northern Iberian shelf, north west Spain
7. Scientific paper on the impacts of the Prestige oil spill on marine mollusks, north west Spain
8. Scientific chapter on the effects of the Prestige Oil Spill on the biota of north west Spain
9. Scientific paper on the impacts of the Hebei-Spirit oil spill on local finfish and shelfish fisheries, Korea
10. Scientific paper on the impacts to the resident orca populations from the Exxon Valdez spill, Prince William Sound, USA
11. Scientific paper estimating the impacts to whales and dolphins from the Deepwater Horizon spill, Gulf of Mexico, USA
12. Scientific paper estimating natural resource damages for 23 Florida cases using physical fates and biological modeling, from the Deepwater Horizon spill, Gulf of Mexico, USA
13. Scientific paper on persistence, toxicity, and long-term environmental impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Prince William Sound, USA
14. Scientific paper on Big oil, big consequences, and the big unknown: exploring the legal, regulatory, and environmental impact of the Gulf oil spill: disasters and ecosystem services deprivation: from Cuyahoga to the Deepwater Horizon, Gulf of Mexico, USA
15. General readership paper on fish, mollusks and other sea animals’ use of sound, and the impact of human created noise in the marine acoustic environment

Geoff and Margi Prideaux
Kangaroo Island
Monday, 11th July 2011

After reviewed my notes taken at the meeting, I would like to make the following comment:

Item 10.2 of 14^th March 2012 Council Agenda

National General Assembly in Canberra on 17-20 June 2012

 The CEO, Mr Boardman sought Council approval for Mayor Bates, Cr Clements and himself to attend the National General Assembly in Canberra on 17-20 June 2012, at a cost of $8,610 of ratepayers money.  In his report (Item 10.2) to the March ordinary meeting of Council, he advised that Council needs to maintain as high a profile as possible within both Local Government and Federal Government.  Last year the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Acting CEO attended the conference.

Mr Boardman’s report can be found on Council’s website: (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20120314%20Council%20Agenda.pdf )

At the March meeting of Council at American River, Cr Willson moved a motion which was seconded by Cr Denholm to support the CEO’s recommendation to authorise the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and CEO to attend this conference as representatives of Kangaroo Island Council.

I opposed the motion saying that it was too costly to send 3 delegates to the conference on a yearly basis and moved an amendment to the original motion that Council authorise only the Mayor to attend this conference as Council’s representative, which was seconded by Cr Walkom although he did not believe that anyone from this Council should attend given that we had 3 representatives who attended last year’s conference.

This amendment was put to the vote and lost by 3 to 6.

The Deputy Mayor, Cr Clements subsequently moved a 2^nd Amendment to approve the Mayor and CEO as Council’s delegates to the conference, agreeing that he would be prepared not to attend the Assembly, which was seconded by Cr Denholm who had already spoken to the original motion.

This amendment was put to the vote and was carried by 6 to 3.

The 2^nd amendment became the motion which was put to the vote and carried by 6 to 3.

The decision of Council on the attendance to the 2012 National General Assembly of Local Government was recorded in the minutes (Item 10.2) of the meeting which can be found on Council’s website:  http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20120314%20Council%20Minutes.pdf.

The Minutes of March meeting was confirmed at the April meeting: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20120411%20Council%20Minutes.pdf,

The main issue is: should Cr Denholm be allowed to second the ‘2^nd amendment’ when he was the seconder of the original motion?

From reading Section 13 of Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000, my understanding of Regulation 13(9) is that the seconder of a motion must speak to the motion at the time of seconding the motion and that the seconder is taken to have spoken to the motion.

Under Regulation 14(1), only Elected Members who have not spoken in the debate may second an amendment.  An amendment will lapse if not seconded at the appropriate time under Regulation 14(2).

According to the Regulations, the ‘2^nd amendment’ moved by Cr Clements should not be accepted by the Mayor due to the lack of a seconder.  The ‘2^nd amendment’ should therefore lapse as Cr Denholm had already spoken to the original motion.

In light of the above situation, I believe that the issue relating to the attendance to the National General Assembly in Canberra has not been resolved as the motion passed does not comply with the Regulations and that technically there was no decision made on this matter by the Council at the March meeting.

NB: The above comment is my understanding of the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000 and is not the view of the Council and its CEO.

Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005

This afternoon the Executive Director of SA Fisheries and Aquaculture Professor Mehdi Doroudi presented to a combined KI Council and NRMB gathering, briefing us on the general status of fish stocks in the ocean surrounding KI.

This proved to be a confident and professional presentation and was based on collated data over some 30 years. In general, it indicated that virtually all stocks were at or near their objective levels and were being managed well; the possible exception may be that King George whiting may be down a little of the last few years but this was not yet a concern.

Fisheries and Aquaculture has all the authority it needs to manage these stocks at similar objective levels well into the future, and possesses the authority if ever needed to be able to completely close all SA waters to fishing.

This presentation followed a presentation to Council by Bill Haddrill (DENR KI – Dep. of Environment and Natural Resources – Kangaroo Island) several weeks ago when he had indicated that he saw little problem/concern at this time about the interactions between little penguins, NZ fur seals and fish stocks, but was unable to fully answer questions council had on this, because some of the information and science about this issue was the responsibility of SA fisheries.

I put the following specific questions to Professor Doroudi:

Q1. Is there any evidence other than speculation, that NZ fur seal populations on KI are unnaturally high.

Answer: No.

Q2. Have you  any evidence, other than anecdotal, that NZ fur seals are having deleterious effects either on fish stocks or Little Penguins. If there is, what is this evidence?

Answer: There are reported increased incidents of these seals raiding open sea farmed fish pens in SA. The seals are known to be aggressive predators, but there is no significant evidence. A study would need to be undertaken to determine if this was the case.

Q3. Is there evidence that controlling seal numbers through a cull, will have beneficial effects on either fish stocks or Little Penguin numbers?

Answer: No.

Professor Doroudi, went on to state that there was no need for Marine Parks and Sanctuary Zones to control and properly manage fish stocks. The need for Marine Parks and Sanctuary Zones are for biodiversity reasons.

Graham Walkom
Kangaroo Island councillor

As a result of ratepayer concerns over the process used in securing providers for service delivery I asked the following question of the council : Why wasn’t this advertised publicly so that every one may have an opportunity to tender  for it? This may give us better value for money, and avoid the possible public perception that there may be “jobs for the boys”.

My questions resulted in Mayor Bates determining to refer the subsequent complaint to an investigator. This is a costly and time consuming process.

How did a legitimate question to the body of Council morph into a public accusation of an employee being corrupt as reported in ‘The Islander’ of 22/3/2012 ?

Councillor Rosalie Chirgwin
Kangaroo Island

[Most part of a letter published 2012.04.19 in The Islander]

Fact or faction

Thank you for your prominent display of my long and protracted argument with Council in regard to the naming of roads on Kangaroo Island (The Islander, April 12 page 1). Unfortunately your article tells only part of the story and I feel paints the Council in a somewhat rosier light than it deserves.

Twelve months ago I was advised by Council that the private road on which I live was to be named Mary Bell Road. I was unhappy with this choice and wrote to Council suggesting the name Box Point Road as a more relevant name, as it runs directly behind Box Point, a well known landmark at Stokes Bay. According to Council Road Naming Procedure, the owner of the land and all abutting residents were advised of the objection and asked to choose between the two names. A 75% majority preferred Box Point Road.

In June I was advised that Council had ignored the wishes of the landowners and retained the original name. I contacted councillors and pointed out that this was undemocratic and a failure by Council to represent the wishes of the landowners affected by this decision. Several councillors chose to investigate further and agreed that the decision was a poor one, and also agreed to rescind the motion and name the road according to the majority’s wish. This was accomplished at the July meeting, which I attended. Several Councillors, notably Cr. Boxall and Cr. Wilson, spoke very strongly against rescinding previous decisions made by Council and voted against. Such a view seems to me to be rather narrow, suggesting that Council is infallible, an unlikely scenario.

During this time, Council decided to review its Road Naming Policy, making changes that would negate its obligation to landowners and give Council the right to do what it liked. I assumed this was in response to my complaint, as the changes would effectively gag troublesome and vexatious people like myself. I did object to the changes for that very reason but the policy was changed.

Given what had gone before, you can imagine my surprise when, at the very next Council meeting, Cr. Boxall moved to rescind the name Box Point Road and replace it with another [of his own choice]! Unfortunately the motion had to lay on the table as the new Policy was not quite cooked. However, at the next opportune moment, Council voted to rescind and rename. No consultation took place, no names were suggested, no documentation supporting the decision was produced and no reasons were offered.

The Ombudsman considers this an “administrative error” but does not define it as deliberate or accidental. He also did not consider it in the public interest to take action to correct it, a view I find bizarre considering that all decisions made by Council, large or small, affect the public eventually. I should point out that no decisions relevant to this matter have been unanimous, with division generally along factional lines.

I have come to understand that the Ombudsman will only consider the letter of the law, not justice or fairness, so perhaps we need an Ombudsman for that as well. This whole saga has turned into a sorry game of “spit the dummy”, with the ruling faction changing the rules to suit their ends. I cannot have confidence in a Council that is ruled by 5 or 6 people who consider their collective wisdom to be infallible and right, regardless of the wishes of those they purport to represent. I congratulate those councillors swimming against the tide and urge them to remain strong, fair and just, and in the words of Don Chip, “keep the bastards honest”.

Daniel Pattingale
Box Point Road, Kangaroo Island

The truth as to why Cr Chirgwin (including Crs Walkom and Liu) has not signed the current Code (not “refused” as alleged by Ms Stevens) was that there were a number of critical issues which concerned us which needed to be addressed before the Code is adopted.  Cr Chirgwin did not refuse the signing of the Code, except deferring the endorsement of this policy until all concerns were addressed.

The main issue which concerned us was that this current policy has not been adopted through proper due processes and consideration of Council.  This revised policy should be firstly commented on by Council and approved for public consultation; then amended as appropriate for formal adoption.  Without following through this required process, this document is technically illegal and contrary to the Local Government Act.

Council approved this revised policy (Minutes 10.2 of 17 August Meeting) despite three of us opposing it strongly on the grounds that comments and concerns put before Council on the draft policy were ignored, in particular the issue with the 3 basic common law rules which applies to natural justice and procedural fairness which were dismissed and not included in the Procedures.

Since we have raised our concerns with the Council, we have been publicly criticized by other Elected Members and harassed to sign this document against our will.

It is our opinion that the current document “Code of Conduct policy and procedures” is illegal and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

• The revised policy has not been legally adopted because the resolution passed at the August Meeting was merely an approval in principle being a first step leading up to the adoption and implementation of the policy;
• There was no specific resolution passed by Council requiring Elected Members to sign the document;
• Due to substantial alterations made to the original ‘policy & procedures’, the revised document must be taken back to the community for further comments prior to formal consideration of adoption of the policy;
• The ‘3 basic common laws’ for natural justice were absent in the document;
• ‘Right of Appeal’ clause deleted from the original policy is a breach of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitutional Law.

Given the reasons outlined above and while we are happy to respect Council’s decision on approving the Code, we believe that this policy has not been formally adopted by Council.  To date our concerns have not been responded to by the Council.

I therefore reject the unwarranted criticism on Cr Chirgwin for failing to sign the Code.

2012.03.30

Today I and Kangaroo Island lost its 4th booking since mid January because of Sealinks charges. Tourists make a booking for my home, on 2 occasions paying their deposit, and then cancel when they go to book the ferry and hear the exorbitant charges. Now multiply that by the 100s and see what the island has lost.

Last year I complained to a sales supervisor in Sealink that Sealink staff had actually talked my booked clients into an accommodation/ferry package through Sealink… I knew of this because of the clients cancelling and me talking to them. Sealinks comeback was basically ‘That’s business’ … well Sealink, let’s have some scruples.

Their booking commissions for renting a holiday home to tourists, are at the highest level of commissions. Yes, they are a private business and must make a good profit to be sustainable and to grow (particularly with their expensive infrastructure).

Yes, I’ll probably get payback from some community members for saying the above, but come on, how long should people shut-up and let things get worse, in government, private enterprise or in the laws and courts?

Jim Scattergood, Penneshaw

Published in The Islander of 2012.04.05 with a sentence edited out

[Note from the Webmaster: our own B&B business has been at the unhappy end of having clients and potential clients cancelling their accommodation booking or their reservation with us, following Sealink staff talking them into rather booking with an accommodation business part of their commissions system -- which we are not part of. This has happened too often to our taste, and we have heard the same story from other businesses.

This business practice of Sealink is unfair to independent and smaller businesses, and illegal by all means. Sealink would be advised to stop it.]

THE TIME IS NOW

FOR COUNCIL TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE COMMUNITY

AND ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS

ABOUT ANY OR NO PROPOSED SEWERAGE SYSTEM

FOR PENNESHAW

“Cr Chirgwin answered the accusations by email but failed to meet with the governance investigator. Investigator Fiona Stevens said the investigation was limited by Cr Chirgwin’s reluctance to provide relevant information and advice.”

Here are the emails exchanged by R. Chirgwin and F. Stevens, which demonstrate that in fact it was the other way round: the LGA investigator failed to meet with Cr Chirgwin as well as the defendant’s witnesses, and failed to provide legitimate clarifications sought by the latter. Despite Ms Stevens writing to Cr Chirgwin:

“If I dont meet you I will only half of the story (…)” [sic]

this flawed LGA investigation process did not stop Ms Stevens from producing two reports (LGA_reports_Chirgwin-Davis-Fernandez_012-02-28) indicting without any qualm and nuance Cr Chirgwin.

To understand the context, one has to know that Cr Chirgwin had already undergone an exhaustive investigation by a Council panel on Cr Davis vast set of complaints (lodged on 2011.03.24), investigation with which she had fully co-operated. At the end of this investigation, all but two of the Davis complaints had been dismissed by the Council panel (of which it must be noted that the chairman, Cr Denholm, was obviously hostile to Cr Chirgwin, having more than once and in public called on her to resign). Unhappy though with the panel conclusion, the majority of the Council had then decided not to accept it and relaunch the investigation process, this time by calling in an external body, the LGA.

Quite logically, Cr Chirgwin was somewhat vexed by this panel report not being taken on board at all by Ms Stevens, and by being submitted once again to the whole tedious process. Nevertheless she did respond to Ms Stevens to the extent that was practical and as an act of courtesy.

Those with an interest in the matter shall be able to make up their own mind by reading thereunder this exchange.

Dr Gabriel Bittar
*******************

Rosalie Chirgwin, 27 March 2012:

Below for your interest: a chain of communications between myself and the investigator Ms Fiona Stevens, that may indicate that both The Islander’s comments and the investigator’s report to council were less than objective.

[RC: This is the original correspondence to me (Rosalie Chirgwin) from the investigator.]

From: fs@centralpsychserv.com.au
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:29:54 +1030
Subject: LGA Governance Panel
To: rosaliechirgwin@hotmail.com

Central Psychology Services
Fiona Stevens
BA Dip App Psych
M Psych (Work and Organisational)
Clinical & Forensic Psychologist
18 Ruthven Ave ADELAIDE 5000
+61 08 8410 2342
www.centralpsychserv.com.au

Councillor Chirgwin

I am the member of the LGA Governance Panel who has been appointed to investigate the Code of Conduct complaints made by Councillor Davis and Mr John Fernandez. I have just tried to ring you but was not able to get through so thought I’d try email to let you know this is also a way I am happy to communicate.

I wanted to speak to you regarding times when it would be convenient for you to meet to address these complaints. I am intending to come to the Island as soon as you are available and so would appreciate an indication from you about when this might be possible.

I look forward to hearing from you, I can be contacted via my office on 08 84102342 or via this email address.

With Regards
Fiona Stevens

[RC: I responded as follows:]

On 25/11/2011, at 9:22 PM, Rosalie Chirgwin <rosaliechirgwin@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear Ms Stevens,
It has been some time since I received your email, and I regret not responding to you sooner, but I have a busy and complicated life.
I understand that you are planning to visit Kangaroo Island next Tuesday and were hoping to have an appointment with me.
That is unfortunate as I have other commitments around that day. Is it possible for you to defer?
In order to be prepared for your impending visit could you please indicate to me your brief?
Who else do you hope to interview with regards to this issue?
How much time do you require with me? (This will help me schedule).
Most importantly, what questions do you plan to put to me?
I look forward to your reply, and to meeting you at the appropriate time.
Yours faithfully,
Cr Rosalie Chirgwin

[RC: Response from investigator Ms Stevens (emphasis by me):]

From: fs@centralpsychserv.com.au
Subject: Re: LGA Governance Panel
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:36:21 +1030
To: rosaliechirgwin@hotmail.com

Dear Cr Rosalie Chirgwin

Thank you ++ for your email.

I hope I can adequately answer all your questions. If I don’t please let me know and I’ll attempt to address any concerns you might have that I have missed.

When I didn’t hear back from you in the last few weeks I reluctantly decided to come to KI to ensure that the complaints were addressed in as timely a fashion as possible. I have had to arrange a schedule to do this both at my end and at the Council’s end which would be hard to reverse. I wonder if you would reconsider and make yourself available for Tuesday afternoon to avoid all the disruption that would be required to change from the 29th to another day. I wondered if I stayed over on Tuesday evening and flew back on Wednesday would that help? Then we could meet in the evening? I just don’t want to inadvertently add to the Council’s costs by changing the bookings at this late stage.

The investigation process is about ensuring that all parties talk to the complaint and respond to questioning designed to clarify the position of all parties. My job is then to consider if the Council’s Code of Conduct is breached and if so what that means for all concerned. I want to make sure each person has their say and so allocate at least an hour for each interview. I base the questions on the complaint and on the interview with the complainant so will be formulating what we might discuss in the process of meeting the two persons who have made complaints on the morning of the 29th. It is not a police investigation, it is to try and illuminate what has happened and look for ways as per your Code of Conduct to improve the conduct of all parties.

I hope I’ve been able to answer your questions. I also hope we will be able to meet on Tuesday at a time that suits you, can you let me know your response to this email as soon as possible. It will be very difficult at this stage to change arrangements from my end hence my request for you to reconsider your availability. This was exactly what I was trying to avoid by my earlier email and then letter as I wanted to work around you and your availability and once that was established to organize all the other parties. When you did not respond I went back to Plan B, by far the less preferable option.

Kind regards
Fiona Stevens

[RC: My response, seeking clarification on who is to give evidence:]

On 26/11/2011, at 11:02 AM, Rosalie Chirgwin wrote:

Dear Ms Stevens,
Thank you for your speedy explanation!
Am I correct in thinking that you will only be speaking to Cr Davis, Mr Fernandez and myself?
Yours faithfully,
Cr Rosalie Chirgwin

[RC: Investigator advises she may be too busy to follow due process (emphasis mine):]

From: fs@centralpsychserv.com.au
Subject: Re: LGA Governance Panel
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 12:53:28 +1030
To: rosaliechirgwin@hotmail.com

Central Psychology Services
Fiona Stevens
BA Dip App Psych
M Psych (Work and Organisational)
Clinical & Forensic Psychologist
18 Ruthven Ave ADELAIDE 5000
+61 08 8410 2342
www.centralpsychserv.com.au

Dear Councillor Chirgwin

thank you once again for your emails. I hope the responses I have provided have been helpful to you and will mean that we can meet on Tuesday.

I appreciate that this time may not be suitable for you but as I have said the Council and I have now set the wheels in motion and am very reluctant to change the plans that have been made at this time.

I wonder if you would be able to let me know what you have decided as I would need to let Mayor Bates know as soon as possible regarding your decision as ultimately it is the Council which determines what might happen next. I find this time of the year to be very busy hence I am very reluctant to change the arrangements that have been made. I am keen to conduct the investigation as soon as possible and in the time frame which suits both the others involved in these complaints and my schedule and so am still hoping we can meet on Tuesday afternoon or even Tuesday evening.

I look forward to hearing from you soon,

With Regards
Fiona Stevens

[RC: My response, again requesting basic information normally provided:]

On 28/11/2011, at 1:19 PM, Rosalie Chirgwin wrote:

Dear Ms Stevens,
I was glad to read that you do not wish to add to Council’s costs. One of my electioneering platforms was to cut unnecessary spending and take a more fiscally stringent approach to council affairs on behalf of electors.
As I clearly stated I have other obligations that preclude any meeting with you this week. It is a great pity that you did not persist in your efforts to contact me by phone or email as I am normally readily accessable.
Considering that I am one of the parties it would be a disagreeable waste of ratepayers money to come on Tuesday when as I have indicated I am not available.
I have noted that you intend to look at complaints laid by Cr Davis. Perhaps you are not aware that due process has already been followed over this one, and much time and effort been expended over those vexatious and frivolous complaints. I would consider any more dealing on this matter as harassment.
The issue between Mr Fernandez and myself could be dealt with on another occasion if my friend, Mr Fernandez, so desires. This could well be done by phone.
In any case I request that I have at least 48 hours advance notification of any questions so that I may consider them properly.
Since it is necessary to establish culpability in order to assess a complaint you would be needing to consult witnesses to any misdeeds.  I would need to know in advance who you wish to interview, and if you intend to interview them before or after our meeting. I would, of course, reserve the right to have my own witnesses and to have them heard in an equitable manner.
If you intend to pursue this case I need to know by what authority. Could you please show me a copy of your brief, and authorisation to proceed in this manner?
Yours faithfully,
Cr Rosalie Chirgwin
EM, Kangaroo Island Council

[RC: Investigator advises her intent to proceed with input from only one side, admitting it will compromise the investigation (emphasis mine):]

Subject: Re: Proposed visit over alleged breaches of Code of Conduct
From: fs@centralpsychserv.com.au
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:03:35 +1030
To: rosaliechirgwin@hotmail.com

Central Psychology Services
Fiona Stevens
BA Dip App Psych
M Psych (Work and Organisational)
Clinical & Forensic Psychologist
18 Ruthven Ave ADELAIDE 5000
+61 08 8410 2342
www.centralpsychserv.com.au

Dear Cr Chirgwin

I am still intending to come to the Island tomorrow to meet with the complainants.

I am still hoping you may change your mind about us meeting when we could have discussed the points you have raised in this email. As the person investigating these complaints my role is to meet with all parties to enable a thorough evaluation of what has been written. If I dont meet you I will only half of the story and so be less able to determine the nature of the complaints and therefore be less able to provide recommendations to Council according to the Code of Conduct. It is by that authority that I am coming to meet you all tomorrow. I sincerely regret that an email and a registered letter was not adequate to ensure we could plan to meet. In lieu of a response from you I had to go to Plan B which I also regret.

With Regards
Fiona Stevens

[RC: I advise the investigator she is ignoring her own investigation criteria:]

From: Rosalie Chirgwin [mailto:rosaliechirgwin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 12:51 PM
To: fs@centralpsychserv.com.au
Subject: RE: Code of Conduct

Dear Ms Stevens,
It seems that circumstances have placed you in a difficult position, and I sympathise with you.  Nevertheless I have some problems with your proposition.

As a freeborn Australian citizen I appreciate that our heritage provides that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Proof of guilt  requires the cross examination of witnesses and the securing of substantial evidence.

You mention that you intend to look at complaints laid by Cr Davis.  I pointed out that these were dealt with at length under a previous Code of Conduct. [ On 28.11.2011 I wrote : "Dear Ms Stevens, Perhaps you are not aware that due process has already been followed over this one, and much time and effort been expended over those vexatious and frivolous complaints. I would consider any more dealing on this matter as harassment.”], yet you did not acknowledge this important factor in your subsequent communications to me.

In the same letter I stated, “Since it is necessary to establish culpability in order to assess a complaint you would be needing to consult witnesses to any misdeeds“ . . . . . and,  “I would, of course, reserve the right to have my own witnesses and to have them heard in an equitable manner.”  Although you stated on 28.11.11 in a reply to me, “As the person investigating these complaints my role is to meet with all parties to enable a thorough evaluation of what has been written. If I don’t meet you I will only half of the story and so be less able to determine the nature of the complaints”, it is apparent to me that you only met with the complainants and did not take the opportunity to obtain the testimony of other less biased witnesses. [emphasis mine]

With regards to principles of natural justice, something that many people claim to be adhering to, are you aware that this is incompatible with secrecy?  It is one of the triumphs of free nations that the courts are open. Secretive examinations are part of the scourge of tyrannical regimes. I doubt that you would approve of such tactics, but I object to the confidentiality you are promoting, and insist that any complaints come out in the open.

In answer to another query you have alluded to your authority, but I would appreciate if you would “please show me a copy of your brief, and authorisation to proceed in this manner“ as previously requested.

Since becoming a ratepayer representative at the last election I have come under a stream of vituperations from a certain sector within council. These have not only hampered my effectiveness as a servant to my community, but have caused me and some of my colleagues an enormous amount of headache and wasted time. Thus I reiterate:  “much time and effort been expended over those vexatious and frivolous complaints. I would consider any more dealing on this matter as harassment.”

I realise that this response was not what you would have been hoping for, and I apologise for that, but I have my own dignity and integrity to uphold.

If I can be of any further help to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully,
Cr Rosalie Chirgwin
Elected Member, Kangaroo Island Council

*********

END OF EXCHANGE
between Cr Rosalie Chirgwin and LGA investigator Fiona Stevens, Nov-Dec. 2011