[Note from the webmaster: despite the votes for a rescission by councillors Walkom, Clements and Willson, Council upheld its decision]From: wr_lizandscottAThotmailDOTcom
To: jayneDOTbatesATbigpondDOTcom
Subject: RE: Recission Motion – Item 13.3
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 10:32:33 +0930Dear 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
KIpolis
A community site for informative and transparent politics on Kangaroo Island
Hi Scott
As the Chair of KIMAG I welcome the debate on matters Marine as we formulate future direction, I am pleased that council did not agree to rescind the previous motion put up by you as we can now move forward with the support of KI council and the KI community, we seek input from people like your self and eco-action as we believe the marine environment needs significant protection from the threats that exist and you may have some constructive ideas.
On personal level I am anxious to ensure oil and gas exploration as a threat is eliminated completely from the KI coastline , I would also like to see the Marine parks extended to include all of KI’s waters and that habitat protection zones are placed in 80% of the extended marine park- these will be areas of debate for us.
You appear a little confused on some issues Scott,The LAG has produced an out come which is being used by the MInister in his deliberations on zoning. the voting was an agreed method between DENR and LAG of eliminating zones that were suggested anonymously by one or two people not the KI community.
You are suggesting that:
“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.”
You may want to explain what you mean here as I can not see where collusion could have been interpreted.
Finally can I assure you I have no vested interest in this, I have no political connections and am very keen that the community fully understand what the implications are for future marine conservation.
Andy Gilfillan
Chair KIMAG
In response to Scott MacDonald’s comment above, I refer you to my letter published in The Islander yesterday. The issue is the LAG came out with recommendations done on majority votes for each Sanctuary Zone. These were the democratic recommendations of the community so hence our request for the Council to support them. My letter is below:
In response to Neill Bell’s letter ‘Issue with Parks’ (The Islander, 26/4/12), I would like to make the following points on behalf of KIMAG.
The LAG process was a community-based process in which all views were taken into account. On this basis the LAG members made recommendations for the location of each sanctuary zone. Each recommendation was made with a significant majority. This was the most democratic way for all views in the community to be expressed.
While KIMAG is made up of representatives mostly from the four KI action groups representing the interests of recreational fishermen, it also has members representing commercial fishermen and the KI Council. At the last Council meeting, KIMAG asked the Council to give their support to KIMAG’s proposal of making sure the LAG recommendations are adopted by the state Labor Government.
Notice of this proposal to the Council was made public at least a week before the Council meeting so plenty of time was given to those wanting to oppose the proposal. At the meeting alternative opinions could have been offered to the Council by any person but none were offered by anyone let alone Eco-Action KI. The Council unanimously agreed to the KIMAG proposal.
Neill Bell’s argument seems determinedly one-sided. While Eco-Action KI and other groups were listened to in the LAG process, the majority democratic view disagreed with them. Having not got his way, Neill now wants to make use the government’s distorted process whereby ‘environmental’ groups get another separate chance to lobby the Government with their own views. This can only be viewed as profoundly undemocratic.
Finally I need to make the point the KIMAG and its supporters want to protect the environment. We want clean, pristine seas and we support Marine Parks. What we disagree with Eco-Action Ki about is the means of maintaining this by using Sanctuary zones. Perhaps if Eco-Action talked to us we might just come to an agreed community view.
Paul Davies
On behalf of Kangaroo Island Marine Action Group (KIMAG)