A Better Eurobodalla

Presentation to 19th November Council Meeting on PSR24/018 Draft Housing Strategy

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to address Council regarding PSR24/018 Draft Housing Strategy, and congratulations to new and returning Councillors.

I am presenting as Co-Convenor of A Better Eurobodalla (ABE), a community forum dedicated to having open and inclusive government in our region. ABE has applied our principles of good governance to the draft Housing Strategy, and urges Councillors to reject the recommendation to endorse the draft document at today’s meeting.

The draft Eurobodalla Housing Strategy (EHS) is intended to fulfil Council’s obligations under the 2018 NSW Local Housing Strategy Guidelines, which assist councils in developing their Local Housing Strategies, and provide a detailed outline and template of how to undertake this process. Unfortunately, the draft EHS has largely ignored these guidelines, with many key elements either missing or briefly glossed over.

For example, the NSW Local Housing Guidelines specifically state that the strategic purpose of a housing strategy is “to present council’s response for how the housing components of District and Regional Plans will be delivered locally. Where housing targets (including affordable housing targets) are part of Regional or District Plans, these should be addressed in the Local Housing Strategy” This strategic purpose is missing from the draft EHS, which also fails to properly address 3 key housing objectives included in the draft South East & Regional Tablelands Plan. These are :

Objective 17 – Plan for a supply of housing in appropriate locations;

Objective 18 – Plan for more affordable, low-cost and social housing; and

Objective 19 – Improve the quality, resilience and sustainability of housing.

In terms of these objectives, the draft EHS provides a partial response to Objective 17, avoids or pays lip service to Objective 18, and totally ignores Objective 19. It therefore fails to fulfil its key strategic purpose.

The omission of Objective 19 is particularly notable, given that ESC’s own Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) includes the strategic priority to “Promote sustainable living” (with specific mention of sustainable building principles), and the draft EHS also fails to mention Council’s Climate Change Action Plan, which includes multiple recommendations and initiatives directly relevant to this objective. Sustainable building design and construction are key elements of an integrated approach to housing in general, and affordable housing in particular, as they dramatically reduce the recurrent running costs of housing.

Other notable disparities from the NSW Local Housing Guidelines include :

failure to include an implementation and delivery plan as required in the Guidelines, which state : The LHS should include an implementation and delivery plan that will identify when and how housing will be delivered over the life of the LHS, what type of housing will be delivered, where it will be located and the mechanism for delivering it.

lack of a specific monitoring and reporting process which can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy, thereby failing to fulfil Step 4 of the Guidelines.

the EHS objectives fail to include the amount and type of housing required to address particular needs, including affordable housing, adaptable housing, seniors and people with a disability, local workers and students, even though these categories are specifically required by the Guidelines.

It is striking that people with a disability, seniors, local workers and students are not mentioned at all in the EHS – they have been totally ignored. Furthermore, in terms of affordability, it is noteworthy that all 3 LGAs adjoining Eurobodalla already have Affordable Housing Strategies, with Bega Valley Shire commissioning an Affordable Housing Implementation Group (including community members) which has met regularly since 2022. In contrast, Eurobodalla Shire cannot bring itself to use the word ‘affordable” as an adjective describing its own housing strategy, which essentially proposes that Council cannot do anything to improve housing affordability. Why this disparity? What unique characteristic sets Eurobodalla Shire apart from its neighbours when it comes to affordable housing strategies? No clear explanation is given in the draft EHS.

The draft EHS also reflects a flawed approach to the 2 information sources used in its compilation, which are a Local Housing Strategy Background Report by Judith Stubbs & Associates and a Eurobodalla Housing Supply Audit by Gyde Consulting.

The Local Housing Background Report is of excellent quality, with plenty of useful information and ideas for policies and actions (e.g. the appointment of a dedicated Housing Officer to Council), yet most of these suggestions have been ignored or downplayed in the draft EHS without any concrete reasoning or explanation. This omission constitutes a major deficiency in the draft EHS.

In contrast, the Eurobodalla Housing Supply Audit exhibits significant deficiencies which are reflected in the draft EHS. The Audit is a GIS-driven desktop assessment containing contradictory information on the number of dwellings approved per year (28/year in the Executive Summary compared to 310/year in Section 2.3), and is also contradictory in its application of conservation criteria. For example, Table 3 on Page 12 states that E2/C2 conservation areas are ”non-mitigable” (and hence cannot be developed), yet Table 8 on page 42 indicates that part of the Broulee site listed for development includes land zoned C2, and is scheduled to be available for development from 2029.

The Audit Report also implicitly assumes that significant environmental constraints (including bushfire and flooding hazards) can somehow be “mitigated” with the passage of 5 or more years of time (see table 3 on page 12). This is an unsustainable assumption, which flies in the face of lived experience in the recent Lismore and western Sydney floods, as well as the catastrophic 2019-20 Black Summer Bushfires.

In summary, the draft EHS fails to provide a coherent and logically structured plan to respond to pressing current needs. It relies extensively on a housing audit with unrealistic/unsustainable assumptions embedded in its core methodology, while ignoring many practical suggestions in an excellent Background Report. In addition, it fails to meet key requirements of the NSW Housing Strategy Guidelines, ignores people with a disability, seniors, local workers and students, and does not provide monitoring and review tools to allow evaluation of the strategy’s effectiveness.

In its present state, the draft EHS cannot be considered an adequate basis for planning future housing activities in the Eurobodalla. It needs to be deferred so it can be significantly reworked to bring it up to standard, and then put on exhibition for genuine community consideration and feedback.

Thank you

Dr Brett Stevenson

Co-Convenor

A Better Eurobodalla

18/11/24

Presentation to public forum 19 November 2024 on FCS24/050 Policy Review – Code of Meeting Practice and FCS24/051 Council Submission to the Office of Local Government on the draft new framework for councillor conduct and meeting practices

Thank you for the opportunity to present to Council and I congratulate
the new and returning councillors. Today I am presenting as Co-
convenor of A Better Eurobodalla, a community forum dedicated to
achieving open, accountable and responsive government in our
Eurobodalla region.
The agenda papers I am commenting on are:
FCS24/050 Policy Review – Code of Meeting Practice and
FCS24/051 Council Submission to the Office of Local Government
on the draft new framework for councillor conduct and meeting
practices.
To deal first with the Policy Review – Code of Meeting Practice. It is
pleasing to see Council thinking about how best to conduct its meetings.
It is worth noting that the current code of meeting practice was only
adopted in July 2023 and was the subject of considerable community
interest and engagement.
I am commenting only on one recommendation that I believe to be
contrary to public interest and that has been canvassed and commented
on at length previously.
First:

Clause 3.4 change from “Approved speakers at the public forum are
encouraged to provide a written copy of their address to the Council by
12.00pm the business day prior to the meeting” to “Approved speakers
at the public forum must provide a written copy of their address to the
Council by 12.00pm the business day prior to the meeting”.

And

Clause 3.28 as per point 3 above, for public access sessions, replace
“encouraged to provide” with “must”. Appendix B also amended to
replace “are encouraged to” with “must”.
These proposed changes take us back to the arrangements that existed
under the unlamented reign of the previous General Manager and the
Council before last. They were changed for good reasons. I take no
issue with the other recommendation that community members indicate
whether they support a recommendation or not.
But to the replace the word ‘encourage’ with ‘must’ as it relates to
advance copies of presentations to Public Access or Public Forums is a
significant issue.
A Better Eurobodalla and, I believe, the majority of speakers at Public
Forum and Public Access take the task of preparing and presenting to
our elected representatives very seriously. We research and prepare our
arguments responding to agenda papers and issues that we are only
made aware of when the agenda becomes available on the Wednesday
before a council meeting. A midday Monday deadline gives us
essentially 4 and ½ days to research and write a paper.
We all have other lives and responsibilities. Many of us are employed, or
active in the community in a voluntary capacity or are carers, or are
managing major health issues. That extra 24 hours until 12:30 Tuesday
allows for better considered and developed presentations to Council.
Sure, if our presentations are ready let’s give them to you early but to
prescribe this is onerous.
The other serious concern is that providing an early written presentation
allows for Councillors to potentially be briefed on the content of the
presentation before the meeting and before they have had the chance to
hear and question the presenter. I can hear the objections to that now –
‘this doesn’t happen’. To that I say that we know that in the past it has
happened and while we hope that is not the current practice, best
practice is to avoid that possibility.

Now to comment on Council Submission to the Office of Local
Government on the draft new framework for councillor conduct and
meeting practices.
The Office of Local Government have put forward a considered and
thoughtful paper. I support the logic and hence quote for the paper:
Strong and thriving communities need effective local government. No
other level of government is as close to the issues and people.
How councillors act and how appropriately and transparently decisions
are made at meetings is critical in demonstrating to the community that
their elected representatives understand the consequences of their
decisions, and then make the best possible decisions they can for their
community as a whole.
Unfortunately, the existing councillor conduct framework is not delivering
on the need for transparency or the necessary degree of respect in the
community for the role that councillors have.
Closed council briefing sessions are being used to make decisions away
from the public view.
Communities and councillors report that council decision making is not
transparent – with decisions being seen as made behind closed doors,
information not being provided or withheld, too much use of closed to the
public briefings or councils going into closed sessions for no adequate
rationale.
The arguments previously put forward for not opening briefing sessions
to the public range from:
 This is not needed because no decisions are made at briefing
sessions, to
 Councillors would be embarrassed to ask uninformed questions of
council staff if members of the public would witness this.
 And from today’s agenda paper the premise put forward is that ‘For
such detailed briefings to be made open to the public, would be
unworkable’ but without a cogent supporting argument for this
position.

 Again, from the agenda paper: For a councillor to be able to
contribute, make informed decisions and participate in integrated
planning and reporting, regular, detailed briefings from Council
staff are essential. Briefings give staff the opportunity to provide
detailed information and presentations to councillors and answer
complex questions, enabling informed decision making and debate
to take place during Council meetings.
A good argument,
 but then the statement: c) Council is unsure how councillors would
be able to digest and understand information in a Council meeting
where they are required to make a decision, without having been
briefed beforehand.
There is no suggestion from OLG that briefing cannot take place,
simply that the public would be entitled to attend such briefings. There
should be no impact on statutory timelines, or the quality of briefing
material provided to councillors. If there are genuine matters, where
commercial in confidence or legal confidentiality is required then
clearly such provisions as currently apply to these matters would
continue. I say this mindful of the overuse of confidentiality provisions
that has occurred in the past.
 Also from the paper: f) There is also a concern that open public
briefings could lead to the voices of the loudest being heard, which
may not in fact be representative of the community. Would the
public be able to ask questions, or speak?
The public can simply be observers of a briefing, as they are for most
of each council meetings, excluding Public Forum. Hence no
problem of ‘the voices of the loudest’ dominating.
The agenda paper seems to put forward the argument that either
briefing sessions are closed to the public or they don’t happen. The
OLG paper does not suggest this. Open and transparent information
sharing and decision making are two of the hallmarks of good
governance. Contrary to the agenda paper, there is no suggestion by
OLG that briefings take place during a Council meeting. Briefings can
happen in the timeframe that now exists.

Also contrary to the agenda paper, there should be only a positive
impact on councillors’ capacity to discuss matters with their
constituents prior to decision making taking place in the Council
meeting. An informed community is an educated community.
The issue of mayors being able to have private briefing sessions will
be a choice for our mayor. He may choose to do so but then normal
briefings would continue for other councillors, just with members of
the public being able to attend.
Thank you
Bernie O’Neil
Co-convenor
A Better Eurobodalla
18 November 2024

ABE Presentation on GMR24/004 Mid-Point Review – Mogo Trails and Coastal Headlands Walking Trail

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to address Council regarding
GMR24/004 Mid-Point Review – Mogo Trails and Coastal Headlands
Walking Trail.

I am presenting as Co-Convenor of A Better Eurobodalla (ABE), a community
forum dedicated to having open and inclusive government in our region. ABE
expects that before governments, at any level, make decisions that will impact
their communities, they will undertake broad and meaningful consultation,
listen to and share expert advice, and proceed using a transparent decision-
making process so that the community understands who makes decisions,
when and why.

ABE has taken a sustained interest in Council’s governance and management
of major grants projects, reflected in multiple written enquiries and
presentations to Council, including a presentation in August 2023 on the
Review of the Bay Pavilions. ABE also made a submission to the NSW
Government Public Accountability Committee examining public grant
processes.

After inspecting the mid-term review, ABE offers the following observations :

1) The external review is a welcome step in providing the community with
insights regarding the current status of these two projects. It has identified
significant financial risks arising for Council and the Eurobodalla community
as both projects move into operational mode, and offers options to address or
reduce these problems.

2) The review’s suggestion for the creation of dedicated project management
skills and resources within Council is a worthwhile initiative, and echoes
similar recommendations made in the Bay Pavilions Review in August 2023.
ABE supports this recommendation

3) While the review has provided useful suggestions on how to minimise the
emerging financial and related risks arising from these 2 grant projects, it
provides no substantive insight into how Council and Eurobodalla ratepayers
came to be in our current predicament. The review exhibits a puzzling lack of
curiosity in how these 2 major financial dilemmas developed, and lacks any
comprehensive documentation regarding information sources and
stakeholders contributing to the review. In this respect, this review is
lamentably similar to the Bay Pavilions review. For those who say that past
events should be ignored as we look to the future, I offer the enduring advice :
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

4) The lack of documentation regarding the Review’s sources and
stakeholders is a critical weakness, as it makes it impossible to evaluate what
community input (if any) has gone into this review, and what degree of
community transparency has been applied in the development of these
projects. It is the lived experience of ABE and other interested community
members that it has been difficult, if not impossible at times, to get accurate
and up to date information regarding either of these projects. For example, the
reduction of the Coastal Walking Trail length from 33km to 14.5 km was never
formally announced – it just mysteriously occurred without any explanation
being provided. Given this track record, it is paradoxical that most of the
potential solutions suggested by the Review involve much greater community
involvement, in order to reduce the impacts on Council resources and staffing.
If Council is serious about enlisting greater community involvement in these
projects, it is essential that it communicates the current circumstances of each
project frankly and fully to the community.

5) The Review’s dismissal of Council’s lack of understanding of the whole of
life cost of the Mogo Adventure Trails as an “unfortunate oversight” strains the
reader’s credibility. Whole of life costing is “Project Management 101”, and is
fundamental to the development of any sort of business case. It is particularly
puzzling in the case of Mogo Adventure Trails, as the initial $3 million Growing
Local Economies grant stipulated requirements for submission of both a
business case as well as “information on how the project will be operated
and/or maintained upon completion”.

6) There is an elementary but non-trivial mathematical error concerning the
maintenance cost of Mystic Ranges on page 15 of the Review. The review
indicates the cost per kilometre as $1,400, when it should in fact be $14,220
per kilometre (i.e. an error factor of 10). This translates to a cost per metre of
$14.22, in comparison with the $1.50/metre cost initially quoted by Dirt Art, the
Mogo track designers. If the Mystic Range figure were applied to the Mogo
complex, it would generate an annual maintenance cost of $2.133 million. The
escalating estimated maintenance costs per metre are a significant risk factor
for the 155 km of Mogo trails, having gone from $1.50 (Dirt Art), $2.15 (draft
Mogo Trails Adventure Plan) to $4.00/metre in the current review.

7) The Mid-Point Review corroborates ABE’s submission to the Public
Accountability Committee that the Coastal Headland Walking Trail project was
not in a “shovel” ready” state when granted $5.25 million of BLER (Bushfire
Local Economic Recovery) grant funding in 2021, despite this being one of
the key requirements stipulated for this program. This unsatisfactory state of
affairs reflects poorly on both the grant provider and the grant applicant.

It is of great concern to ABE and many other community members that three
large Public Funding grants (totalling more than $84 million) have become
current or imminent ongoing financial and/or resources black holes for Council
and its ratepayers. The forces that facilitated these financially “poison pill”
grants are still with us, and the community needs to be vigilant to ensure that
history does not repeat itself. The recommendations outlined in the Mid-Point review, if fully and rigorously implemented, can make a significant contribution
to avoiding such errors in the future.

The long term negative financial implications from the Mogo Adventure Trails
and Coastal Headlands Walking Trail projects, on top of the already disclosed
financial burden arising from the Bay Pavilions Aquatic Centre, underscore
the critical need to pursue the good governance and transparency objectives
that ABE has consistently been putting forward to Council for over 3 years.
Thank you for your attention.

Dr Brett Stevenson
Co-Convenor
A Better Eurobodalla
21/5/2024

ABE Public Forum Presentation regarding PSR24/001 Planning Proposal The Farm – 207 Broulee Road

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to address Council regarding PSR24/001 Planning Proposal – 207 Broulee Road.

I am presenting on behalf of A Better Eurobodalla (ABE), a community forum dedicated to having open, accountable and responsive government. ABE believes that the key principles for good governance are transparency, clear communication and meaningful consultation based on accurate, professional advice. The Planning Proposal before you today does not meet any of these criteria and should not receive your support to proceed to Gateway Determination.

The report from Council’s Planning and Sustainability Services lays out very clearly multiple reasons why this Planning Proposal should not be supported.

At the strategic level, an independent assessment by a planning consultant found that the Planning Proposal contradicts:

both Regional and local planning strategies, such as the Rural Lands Strategy, as well as State Environmental Planning Policies and numerous Ministerial Directions under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act;
the intended character of development in the C4 Environment Living zone and the proposed uses which are allowed in this zone under the Eurobodalla Local Environment Plan; and
preliminary work on the Eurobodalla Housing Strategy which has already identified lands suitable to be developed for housing to adequately meet projected population growth in the shire beyond 2041.

This independent assessment also found that although the Planning Proposal describes the development as an “Agrihood” (a term with no formal meaning), the block sizes and proposed housing types are actually urban in character. Consequently the density of the proposed development will require the provision of significant infrastructure (roads, drainage etc) which has not been planned or budgeted for and which will put an enormous strain on Council resources. It will divert funding away from existing growth areas at Batemans Bay, Tomakin, Rosedale, Moruya South and Dalmeny and impact Council works across the shire.

This unsolicited Planning Proposal will add an extra 800 houses and an estimated 1,800 residents to Broulee impacting both the character of Broulee Village and the adjacent Illawong Nature Reserve which surrounds it to the north, south and east. The wetlands in the Nature Reserve constitute endangered vegetation which provides habitat for a number of threatened species. The Planning Proposal has not explained how it will avoid impacting on these wetlands and the threatened species they support, as well as the associated waterways. Large areas of endangered vegetation have already been cleared around Broulee to accommodate over 400 new houses as part of the Broulee Beach Estate, which has seen the size of Broulee grow by 50%. This Planning Proposal would almost double that again.

If the report provided by Council’s Planning and Sustainability Services does not convince you that this Planning Proposal lacks strategic and site-specific merit, then consider the approach and track record of the developer, Brightlands Living.

This Sydney-based developer has consistently failed to provide Council with adequate documentation to back claims that his development would be sustainable and environmentally beneficial. He has not provided details about how his Planning Proposal will increase the diversity and affordability of housing in the Eurobodalla. He has attempted to justify proposed commercial uses, which are prohibited in the C4 Environmental Living zone, by saying that he will prepare a site-specific Development Control Plan to allow for this type land use. This is not possible under NSW planning legislation. He has also failed to demonstrate how the environmentally sensitive areas surrounding the Planning Proposal would be protected and impacts on the aquatic habitats avoided. To quote Council’s report ‘the Planning Proposal and supporting documentation has not considered any environmental investigations, geotechnical limitations, community engagement or cost estimates associated with servicing the development’.

There are multiple inconsistencies in this half-baked proposal, which fails to demonstrate how many of the so-called benefits will be achieved in practice. So much so, that the independent planning consultant concludes by saying ‘the proposal represents a large urban expansion that seeks to present itself as a low density environmental living development in a currently un-serviced and isolated rural area requiring significant infrastructure development’.

The community was not consulted throughout this process, instead the developer spoke to a few select entities, most of whom are now adamant that their responses have been misrepresented as support for the Planning Proposal in the documentation provided to Council. This raises questions of probity and throws into doubt the credibility of the developer. So what are his credentials and his track record in relation to environmentally sustainable development? Ed Fernon is the CEO of Brightlands Living, there is no one else. He was a property consultant in Brisbane before heading up Brightlands Living which only has 3 projects on its website : one in Leura, which is Brightlands Wellness Retreat; a draft proposal at Hilltop, which appears to be a retreat and function centre, and another draft proposal for a high rise at Woolloongabba in Queensland. There is no evidence he has any background in the kind of development being proposed for Broulee.

The Planning Proposal does not follow accepted planning practice, is inconsistent with existing planning strategies, has not provided sufficient supporting documentation and has not engaged openly and honestly with the affected community. By voting to support it you will be setting a dangerous precedent for unplanned, unwanted and inappropriate development in the Eurobodalla. This may make some residents question whether their Councillors are really representing the community rather than an opportunistic property developer. Consequently, I urge you to take on board the advice provided by Council’s planning staff and vote to reject this Planning Proposal.

ABE Public Forum Presentation 19th December 2023 Regarding GMR23/033 Sculpture for Clyde Event Funding Request

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to address Council regarding GMR 23/033 Sculpture for Clyde Event Funding Request, which is largely a repackaged version GMR23/032 from the November 21^st Council meeting.

I am presenting as Co-Convenor of A Better Eurobodalla (ABE), a community forum dedicated to having open and inclusive government in our region. ABE has previously addressed Council on transparency and open communication, key principles of good governance.

In a nutshell, today’s agenda paper is recommending that Council provide $20,000 in funding, plus an additional $8,074 in kind support through waiving the usual venue hire fees as well as providing the services of Council’s Rapid Response Team and meeting the costs of installing the prize winning sculpture. This public funding request is for an event whose prize money has doubled in the last 3 years (from $50,000 in 2021 to $100,000 in 2024), and which has already received $20,000 funding from Council earlier this year when it requested “one off” financial assistance for relocation costs.

This request comes at a time when Council is experiencing an annual $4.5 million loss from the Bay Pavilions as well as multiple external cost pressures, and Eurobodalla ratepayers are being advised to prepare for steep rates increases and cuts to services.

My ABE colleague Bernie O’Neil identified key governance, equity and precedent-setting problems with this funding request in Public Forum when it was presented to Council on the 21^st November. These problems remain, and have been compounded by the events of the Extraordinary Meeting of the 5^th December outlined in today’s agenda.

The procedures adopted at the Extraordinary Meeting were not consistent with the requirements specified in Office of Local Government (OLG) Guidance, in that the decision taken to not allow any debate or deliberation on the rescission motion while still allowing Public Forum to go ahead was not derived from a formal public vote of Councillors in the chamber.

The OLG Meetings Practice Note States :

“Once the agenda for the meeting has been sent to the councillors, an item on the agenda should not be removed from the agenda prior to the meeting.

If it is proposed that an item of business which is on the agenda not be dealt with at the meeting, council should resolve to defer the business to another meeting or resolve not to consider the matter, as the case may be.”

In contrast, today’s agenda paper states that “The Extraordinary Meeting went ahead when Councillors reached consensus just prior to the meeting that the nine registered speakers, most of whom had already arrived at the Chamber, should be given the opportunity to speak at Public Forum”.

It is notable that there was no formal public vote of Councillors to support this pre-meeting decision. Noting that the Cambridge dictionary defines consensus as “a situation in which all the people in a group agree about something”, in the interests of good governance and transparency it would have been desirable for a public vote on this proposal be undertaken in the chamber and put on the formal public record. This is the second successive Council meeting where OLG specified procedures were not followed by Council in dealing with this funding request.

There are also ongoing issues regarding ‘conflict of interest” aspects. For example, when the previous Sculpture for Clyde funding request was considered by Council in February 2023, Councillors Schutz, Grace and Dannock and Mayor Hatcher disclosed non-significant, non-pecuniary interests in the issue, and stated that they did not believe their interest would preclude them from voting on the matter. All 4 indicated that a donation was received from the event organiser for their teams in the 2021 local government election. However, when a similar request from the same organization was submitted in November 2023, Mayor Hatcher chose to recuse himself from voting on the issue. The Council agenda item provides no explanation for this change in approach between the 2 meetings. It is also anomalous that, while recusing himself from voting on the proposal, Mayor Hatcher has been present and participated in pre-meeting Council deliberations on this issue, which is at odds with relevant OLG guidelines which state :

4.29 The councillor or council committee member must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the council or committee:

a) at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the council or committee, or

b) at any time during which the council or committee is voting on any question in relation to the matter.

In a time of widespread and ongoing financial stress, it would be unfair to existing Eurobodalla Hallmark events, such as River of Art and Narooma Oyster Festival, for Council to agree to the disproportionate level of funding sought by Sculpture for Clyde without rigorous and transparent documentation of anticipated event expenditure and activity budgeting. This would set an extremely bad precedent for any future requests for this type of funding support. Any future applications for event funding of this scale should be expected to meet comparable requirements to those laid down for other Eurobodalla Hallmark events.

Approval of the current proposal would also be at odds with relevant principles for Councils spelt out in the NSW Local Government Act, which include :

» consideration of social justice principles; and

» ensuring decisions are transparent and that decision-makers are accountable for decisions and omissions.

On the basis of the significant governance, transparency, credibility and equity issues outlined above and in Bernie O’Neil’s Public Forum presentation on the 21^st November, ABE urges Councillors to :

offer the 2024 Sculpture on the Clyde event a similar level of funding that other established and well-documented Eurobodalla Hallmark Events have received, which is $8,000, and
require the organisers to provide the same level of reporting on the outcomes and expenditures of the event that other Hallmark Event recipients are obliged to provide.

This is the very least Council can do to ensure that public money is well spent and accounted for.

Thank you for your attention.

Dr Brett Stevenson

Co-Convenor

A Better Eurobodalla

19/12/2023

A Better Eurobodalla (ABE) presentation to ESC Public Forum on GMR23/032 SCULPTURE FOR CLYDE – EVENT FUNDING REQUEST

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to address Council. I am
presenting as Co-Convenor of A Better Eurobodalla (ABE), a community forum
dedicated to having open and inclusive government in our region. ABE has
previously addressed Council on transparency and open communication, key
principles of good governance.
Some context for the decision that is recommended to councillors today. Recently we
residents and ratepayers of Eurobodalla have consistently and convincingly been
told that money is tight in the management of our shire. We believe you. Expenditure
is being curtailed across a range of areas.
An example as highlighted in a recent letter to the Moruya Mail by Susan Murphy,
the president of the Moruya and District Historical Society. I quote:
‘In 2022-23 total annual funding for the three historical societies in the shire
(Batemans Bay, Moruya and Narooma) declined from a total of $4500 in the
preceding years to $3000 per annum, or only $1000 for each society. In the case
of Moruya, we pay around $2500 in rates each year. So the MDHS is paying the
Council $1500 per annum so that we can provide this valuable community
resource. This is an embarrassing lack of support for the preservation of this
community’s local history. ‘
There are other examples.
Another fundamental consideration for the expenditure of scarce public moneys is
open competition. We have all lived through the ‘whiteboard’ scandals of
governments at federal and state levels in recent years. That is when decisions are
made which ignore or override the reasonable competitive processes that are based
on transparency and meeting the policy objectives of the relevant organisation.
Another piece of relevant history comes from the Council meeting of 28 February 2023.

At that meeting earlier in this calendar year, Council agreed ‘THAT Council
provide Sculpture for Clyde with the agreed $8,000 Tourism Destination Event
funding and contribute an additional $12,000’.
At that meeting four councillors, Mayor Hatcher, Councillor Grace, Councillor Shutz
and Councillor Dannock declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in
Sculpture for Clyde – Hallmark Event Funding and stated that they did not believe
their interest would preclude them from voting on the matter. All four of these
councillors stating that a donation was received from the event organiser for their
teams in the 2021 local government election.
At that meeting the agenda paper for:
PSR23/008 SCULPTURE FOR CLYDE – HALLMARK EVENT FUNDING stated:

‘Hallmark event funding has historically been granted to two well established
events in the Eurobodalla, with over ten years of development, growth, and ability
to demonstrate their capability to meet the key attributes. The Sculpture for Clyde
event has not been held on the Batemans Bay waterfront since 2017, making it
difficult to assess the event against the key attributes.
A budget was provided to Councillors on 20 February 2023 indicating that Council
funding would be part of the income to support the relocation of the event to the
Shire. The organisers were clear that additional council resources would not be
required to support the event.
Council has been approached by many event organisations over the past 12
months to increase its support. This has been for both commercial events as well
as not-for-profit organisations. For example, Council will recall a request by the
Narooma Oyster Festival for additional support based on the unprecedented
growth of that event, coupled with the dramatic increase in running costs.’

So, the $20,000 granted in February 2023 was ‘part of the income to support the
relocation of the event to the Shire’. Based on the publicly available material, it is not
at all clear what the $20,000 currently under consideration will be used for.
To better understand Sculpture for Clyde I went to their website and contacted them
direct. While the website gives no information about the structure or constitution of
the organisation direct advice has given me the not-for-profit structure and
committee names. No financial details beyond the value of prizes are available on
the website. What it does tell me is that the major partners listed are: Batemans Bay
Lodge, Bridge Plaza Village Centre, Climate Control, McPherson Park Lawyers, L J
Hooker Batemans Bay, the NSW Government and Eurobodalla Shire Council. Plus
16 listed local businesses as major sponsors.
The website and local publicity indicate that the value of the prize money for 2024 is
$112,000 with the acquisitive prize set at $100,000.
From today’s Agenda paper:
‘The event will benefit from Council’s Rapid Response Team, which will be
deployed for the 2024 event.’
and
‘Financial assistance to Sculpture for Clyde 2024 event has not been included in
Council’s published 2023-24 budget. Funds will be sourced from within the
existing events operational budget. Providing funding for the event will include a
$20,000 financial contribution as well as a waiver of venue fees of $8,074.00.’

So, we have a proposed $20,000 grant, waived venue hire of over $8000 and
uncosted support in kind. In addition, my understanding is that Council will meet
whatever the associated costs for installing the acquisitive prize-winning sculpture
might be.

Meanwhile the community grants offered to not for profit organisations for youth,
seniors, healthy communities and NAIDOC week by Council are limited to $500.

Councillors there is another way to consider governance, and that is the pub test.
Here we have an organisation that has established relationships with several
councillors coming to Council for financial and in-kind assistance with no transparent
competitive process.

By contrast, the established Hallmark events supported by Council had to apply
through a formal expression of interest process within a Council established
timeframe. They report on their $20,000 per year as a condition of their grants.
Additionally, unlike Sculpture for Clyde, these events do not rely solely on Localis
data (all I could find for reporting) but survey attendees and participants on
experience and home location and provide reports based on these data.
If the argument for supporting this proposal is that Narooma and Moruya have
Hallmark events and therefore Batemans Bay deserves one, then run a competitive
process.

Meanwhile Sculpture for Clyde is offering prize money of more than $100,000. An
extraordinary amount for an art prize in our regional community. Just maybe the
prize money could be set at $80,000 thereby negating the need for Eurobodalla
ratepayers to subsidise this event when we are in a recognised period of financial
stress.

The recommendation being put to councillors today is not supported by a rigorous
and transparent decision-making process. If there are funds available to support art
and cultural activities that draw visitors to Eurobodalla and its businesses, Council
should run transparent, competitive processes. That way the community, that funds
Council activities, is confident that the best possible decisions are being made.

Bernie O’Neil
Co-Convenor
A Better Eurobodalla
21 November 2023

ABE Public Forum Presentation 21st November 2023 Regarding PSR23/041 – Planning Proposal to reclassify community land to operational land – LEP amendment 19

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to address Council regarding
PSR23/041 – Planning Proposal to reclassify community land to
operational land – LEP amendment 19. This reclassification would be the
first step in selling off all or part of 10 parcels of community land, permission
for which is also sought in today’s agenda papers.

ABE has previously presented to Council outlining its concerns regarding the
alienation of public assets, and this planning proposal is yet another instance
of this recurring problem. In addition, some recommendations in this proposal
are at odds with the independent expert advice obtained by Council during the
planning process, reflecting a further example of poor governance.

The key justification advanced for the proposed reclassification and sell-off is
that it is consistent with the recommendations of a 2018 consultant’s report –
the Recreation and Open Space Strategy (the ROSS). Analysis of this report
indicates it does not provide a coherent, accurate or reasoned explanation to
support the proposed sell-off. The ROSS is not an adequate or sufficient basis
to justify the proposal being considered by Councillors today, as outlined in
the following issues.

1) The ROSS has a tarnished history in regard to selling off community land.
The initial draft of the ROSS recommended the sell-off of Lot 558, DP 752155
in Narooma. It turned out that this parcel of land was in fact Walker Park
Narooma. This sell-off was presented as satisfying the woefully vague goal of
“Redistribution of Assets”. This proposal was subsequently dropped in
response to community anger at this absurd ROSS recommendation.

2) The ROSS provides no explanation or justification for the specific
circumstances or factors which justify the sell-off of these public assets. While
it provides analysis of trends in recreation, projected population growth and
existing resources available in various localities, the ROSS contains no
concrete explanation or justification for the proposed sell-off of these parcels
of community land. The recommendations simply appear out of thin air, under
the rationale of satisfying the woefully vague goal of “redistribution of assets”.

3) The ROSS states that these lots “have no recreation or conservation
value”. This statement is demonstrably wrong. As an example, both the
Durras and Broulee lots have significant conservation values in terms of
connectivity, significant natural values and carbon storage, which warranted
the environmental investigations outlined in appendices to today’s agenda
paper. The Broulee site contains large mature trees of the Sand Bangalay
Forest (a NSW-listed endangered ecological community), which provides
habitat for the Broulee Yellow Bellied Gliders (which are listed as an
endangered species at both the State and Commonwealth levels).
Eurobodalla Shire Council even has a specific Conservation of the Yellow
Bellied Glider Policy which applies to ALL land within the Broulee area, yet
this is not mentioned in the ROSS. The ROSS totally ignores these significant
environmental values, which have become even more critical in the wake of
the Black Summer Bushfires.

4) It is clear that the 2018 ROSS report has been overtaken by subsequent
major community disruptions and challenges, including the Black Summer
bushfires and the Covid 19 pandemic. The importance of community
connections and community assets have been highlighted by both these
major events, yet today’s proposal seeks to erode both these critical
resources in the Eurobodalla.

5) In the context of today’s significant planning proposal, it is notable that the
current 2020 Eurobodalla Local Strategic Planning Statement contains not
one mention of the ROSS in its 46 pages – not even as a reference or
footnote. Why then is this narrow Recreation and Open Space Strategy now
being used as the key basis for such significant planning decisions, which
should be based on integrated multi-factorial considerations?

6) Community land is intended to be managed for use by the community for
multiple purposes, including environmental protection, recreational, cultural,
social and educational activities. The planning proposal under consideration
today has failed to consider these multiple beneficial factors when it
concludes that these parcels are “surplus to community needs”. The current
planning proposal’s reliance on an open space strategy as the justification for
this proposed sell-off means that it has failed to adequately consider these
additional important dimensions regarding what constitutes the inherent
values of “community land” – it ignores a key principle of “integrated
planning”.

7) In addition to its reliance on the limited and flawed ROSS report, today’s
planning proposal also fails to transparently quantify the financial benefits
which will accrue to Council if the proposed sell off proceeds. Given that
today’s agenda paper also seeks permission to sell off these community
assets without providing any information regarding their sale value, could this
place a Council decision taken today in legal jeopardy?

8) It is also noteworthy that today’s planning proposal ignores
recommendations of the independent planning consultant who chaired the
May 2023 Public Hearing into this proposal. The independent consultant
recommended that community land at Fauna Avenue, Long Beach and Moir
Place Broulee should NOT be sold off. Why should Council use ratepayers
monies to hire independent experts to provide advice if it then chooses to
ignore their independent expertise?

On the basis of the significant governance, transparency and credibility issues
outlined above, ABE urges all Councillors to reject the planning proposal and
community asset sell-off outlined in PSR23/041.
Thank you for your attention.

Dr Brett Stevenson
Co-Convenor
A Better Eurobodalla
21/11/2023

A Better Eurobodalla (ABE) Presentation to the Eurobodalla Shire Council Public Forum on Tuesday 15th August 2023 – GMR23/031 Review of Bay Pavilions

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for the opportunity to present to Council. I present as Co-convenor of A Better Eurobodalla (ABE), a community forum working to achieve open, accountable and responsive government in Eurobodalla.

My focus today is on agenda item GMR 23/031- Review of Bay Pavilions. ABE, along with other concerned members of the community, have taken a sustained interest in the Pavilions project, with a particular focus on its long term financial implications for Eurobodalla ratepayers.

While the 30 page consultant’s report provides a useful snapshot of the current financial problems facing the Pavilions, it does little to illuminate HOW we arrived at this parlous state or WHAT we should do to respond effectively. The report is more notable for what it omits than what it includes.

It is remarkable that the report lists only 8 “stakeholders”, with community members not represented. All of the chosen “stakeholders” either work in Council or are contracted by Council. It is therefore an internally commissioned, driven and focussed report. There is no acknowledgement that the Eurobodalla community are in fact the “stakeholders” who will be paying the wages and footing the bills for ongoing financial losses of this project.

Given the constricted pool of “stakeholders”, it is perplexing that the consultants failed to interview the 2 current Councillors who served through the entirety of the project. The only Councillor included is our current Mayor, who was elected at the tail end of this sorry saga.

Based on the limited project information contained in the report, the impression given is that it proceeded smoothly until operations commenced, when it was realised that there were financial problems. This is misleading, as the project exhibited cost blowouts and ongoing design modifications from its origins in dubious Commonwealth and State grant funding, with construction costs rising from $46 million to around $70 million – another inconvenient but important truth missing from this report. This alarming trend generated significant public disquiet, with questions and information requests being put to Council by individuals and community groups (including ABE) throughout the project. None of these community enquiries or concerns are acknowledged in the report.

It is possible that some of this community input may have been included in the “approximately 200 documents” given to the consultants, but (because the report does not include a full documentation list) it is impossible to ascertain whether these submissions have been ignored or excluded. This key omission also diminishes confidence in the eight findings which state “No evidence provided for review”, as it is impossible to ascertain what evidence was actually submitted to the consultant.

It is notable that the only business case ever publicly released for the Pavilions was a 2017 DRAFT document which specifically stated that it did not include depreciation impacts and should not be used for grant application purposes, yet this is precisely what subsequently occurred. This key governance failure is not acknowledged in the report. In fact, the Eurobodalla community is still in the dark about the updated business case utilised by Council and shared with the consultants to prepare this current report. Every community request for key information or updated assumptions around the project was rejected under the guise of “commercial in confidence”, even when this was clearly not applicable. This is another key failure ignored by the report – the words “commercial in confidence” are absent from both the report and accompanying agenda paper tabled today.

It is especially puzzling that Councillor Mayne was not consulted for this report, as he was one of the 3 Councillors who asked well-informed and now vindicated key questions at critical junctures during the project, and yet the consultants did not meet with him. The key documents listed make no mention of the official video footage of Council meetings when important community-driven questions from these Councillors were actively blocked or ignored by senior Council staff. Once again, the question arises – have these critical governance failures been just ignored? Their omission from the report tacitly implies that these officially documented public failures of process do not warrant acknowledgement or require any updated governance practices – they have just been “disappeared” into the past.

For those who may say that these past events should be ignored as we look to the future, I offer the timeless advice :

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Any record of the Bay Pavilions project which chooses not to “remember” and acknowledge these key failures of Council staff and governance processes cannot be a credible basis to guide and inform the improvements required to ensure they will not be repeated in the future.

Past actions and failures of Council cannot be ignored or excused simply because some Council staff have moved on, since many of the senior staff present during this governance debacle are still present. Council as a legal entity is morally and legally bound to take responsibility and be accountable for its decisions and behaviour, both current and past. The requirements of the NSW Model Code of Conduct set minimum conduct standards for Council officials. They are required to :

understand and comply with the standards of conduct expected of them;
fulfil their statutory duty to act honestly and exercise a reasonable degree of care and diligence; and
act in a way that enhances public confidence in local government.

Council’s non-transparent conduct during the Pavilions project was not consistent with these goals.

Mayor Hatcher recently said :

“Transparency is critical for community confidence. There are important lessons to be learned from this review and decisions to be made based on the recommendations in the report.”

ABE wholeheartedly agrees with him, and believes that the Pavilions fiasco is an object lesson of the financial and social damage done when a Council fails to be open, honest and transparent with their community.

The NSW Office of Local Government (OLG) guidelines state that Councillors “are expected to represent the views of the community while making decisions in their interests; demonstrate conduct that the community expects and deserves; and plan and oversee the running of a significant and complex business.”

It is clear that the conduct exhibited by Council throughout the Bay Pavilions project was frequently at odds with each of these requirements, and therefore constitutes a serious and systemic failure of governance which must be addressed.

Today’s agenda paper recommendation to “receive and note“ the report with “consideration” being given to vaguely worded changes to Council processes at an unspecified point in the future is not commensurate with the nature and scale of the problems revealed.

ABE therefore urges Councillors as a matter of urgency to direct senior staff to prepare and publicly circulate a concrete set of draft proposals which:

address the key governance issues contributing to the systemic failures evident in the Bay Pavilions project, and
significantly reduce the Pavilion’s recurrent financial burden on Eurobodalla ratepayers.

The review report makes it clear that significant decisions of great consequence for the Eurobodalla community must soon be made about future management of the Pavilions. The community’s confidence in Council’s ability and willingness to effectively and transparently make these decisions has been severely damaged by past events, and will be irretrievably broken if they are excluded from undertaking a meaningful role in this process.

To chart a successful course into the future, we need to understand and acknowledge how we arrived where we are today.

Thank you for your attention,

Dr Brett Stevenson

Co-Convenor, A Better Eurobodalla

A Better Eurobodalla (ABE) presentation to Eurobodalla Shire Council public forum 15 August 2023 on CAR23/012 Aboriginal Advisory Committee Recommendation

I am presenting today as the Co-convenor of A Better Eurobodalla
(ABE), a community forum working to achieve open, accountable and
responsive government in Eurobodalla.

ABE has applied our principles of good governance to the following
Aboriginal Advisory Committee Recommendation (ESC CAR23/012):
‘We the members of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee recommend that
the Eurobodalla Shire Council supports a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum for
an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. Also, that
the Council advises all residents of Eurobodalla Shire about this decision
and advertises this decision in signs on the council’s properties’.

The governance aspects that I will discuss this morning relate to
 the role of the ESC Aboriginal Advisory Committee and its
relationship with council, and
 the role of local government in relation to national or federal
issues.

As background, the statement by the nine chief ministers of
Australia supporting the constitutionally enshrined voice to
Parliament, noted the following principles put forward by the
referendum working group for the Voice, that it:
 provides independent advice to the parliament and
government
 is chosen by First Nations people based on the wishes of local
communities
 is representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities
 Is empowering, community-led, inclusive, respectful, culturally
informed and gender balanced and includes youth
 is accountable and transparent
 works alongside existing organisations and traditional
structures
 does not have a program delivery function and
 does not have a veto power.

The Eurobodalla Shire Council Aboriginal Advisory Committee is
one of the seven advisory committees to council. Its Terms of
Reference include that:
‘The role of the committee is to promote Aboriginal Culture within
the Eurobodalla Shire and to advise and make recommendations to
Council on matters relating to Aboriginal people.’
The Objectives of the Committee include ‘To advise and liaise with
Council regarding issues impacting on local Aboriginal
communities’.

In August 2018 the Australian Local Government Association made
a Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional
Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Peoples.
That submission included that :
‘Local governments across Australia are very supportive of
constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples. At the National General Assembly of Local Government
(NGA) held in June this year over 800 representatives of local
governments voted on motions of national importance to local
governments. One of these motions was that the National General
Assembly endorses the constitutional acknowledgement of
Indigenous Australians as the first peoples of this land.’

These statements and positions firmly place this issue in the realm
of local government across Australia.
More recently at the ALGA June 2023 meeting attended by our
Mayor, the resolution (Motion number 95) was carried that:
‘This National General Assembly acknowledges the Australian
Government’s support of constitutional recognition for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islanders through a Voice to Parliament and
recognises what the Uluru Statement and the Voice to Parliament
will mean for Australia’s First Nations peoples and the broader
Australian community.’
Arguments put against local government taking a position on the
Voice include that this is a political issue and that it is a federal
issue and therefore not the business of local government.
Whether it is liked by individuals or not, local government is part of
the political domain. People stand to be elected on positions that
they take publicly, whether they are part of a recognised political
party or as independents. They are voted in to represent their
constituents. This is political.

Somewhat ironically this issue of the Voice to Parliament sits more
comfortably outside traditional political processes. As we know it
comes from the Uluru Statement from the Heart – a non-partisan
document. While there has been opportunistic politicisation of the
Voice, it has not emerged from a political party but from Australia’s
First Nations peoples.

In Eurobodalla, and particularly in this place, the First Nation’s voice
comes through the Aboriginal Advisory Committee. That message to
Council is to support a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum for an Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament.

Twelve months ago, on 26 August 2022 Mayor Hatcher gave us some
very relevant words. I quote:
‘Some members of the community want us to have an opinion and
stand up to advocate strongly, while others think we should stay in our
lane and just deal in roads, rates, and rubbish. A quick look around
local social media makes this contrast clear.
The councillors and I were elected as advocates to the Council on
behalf of community. But we also see our role involves lobbying the
state and federal government on issues you want to see changed. I
believe our Council is more than roads, rates, and rubbish.
When there’s a housing crisis, when there’s potholes on the Princes
Highway and when someone wants a speed limit lowered, we are
contacted. We are looked to when everything goes wrong and asked
to fix things even if it’s not something that local councils do. Just
because it’s not something we do, doesn’t mean we can’t fight for it to
happen.

I believe it’s my role, and that of Council, to show leadership on issues
beyond local government. Anywhere there’s an opportunity to make
life better for our residents, we should and will step in.
Our advocacy shines a light on state and federal issues.’

In recent times the local government sector has made resolutions to
Australian Government on matters including:
climate change and adaptation; transition to net zero; coastal
adaptation planning; housing and emergency response and
resilience.

So, to engage in and impact on national or federal issues is an
intrinsic and important role of local government as the level of
government closest to the people who it serves.

In December 2022 thirty-eight mayors from across Australia issued
a joint statement in support of the upcoming referendum for
constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. That statement
included that:
‘Local government must play an important role in holding civic
forums, promoting dialogue, and providing a platform for
Indigenous voices to be heard in the debate. We believe that a
successful referendum can be a unifying achievement for
Australia.’

In Eurobodalla, the 2466 people who identified as Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islanders in the 2021 census represent 6.1% of our
population, compared to 3.4% across NSW and 3.2% across
Australia.

From the ESC Aboriginal Action Plan 2020-2024
‘Council acknowledges, respects and works with the traditional
custodians of the land, and sees our relationship with Aboriginal
people as an important step in building community strength and
resilience. The benefits of strong relationships between Aboriginal
and non-Aboriginal people include: • mutual understanding of the
culture and heritage • building trust between Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal people • increased sense of wellbeing and community
resilience • acknowledgement and healing of past traumas •
collaboration and meaningful interactions for consultation, and •
nurturing future relationships.’

This resolution gives this council the opportunity to live up to those
goals.

Bernie O’Neil
Co-convenor
A Better Eurobodalla

A Better Eurobodalla presentation to Eurobodalla Shire Council Public Access Session on Code of Meeting Practice 25 July 2023

I am presenting today as the Co-convenor of A Better Eurobodalla
(ABE), a community forum working to achieve open, accountable and
responsive government in Eurobodalla.

ABE has applied our principles of good governance to a recent issue of
amendments to the ESC Code of Meeting Practice.

ABE has been an active participant in the process of reviewing and
amending the previous Code of Meeting Practice (the code), making
submissions, presenting to Council, attending the formal workshop, and
writing to and meeting with the general manager. As such I feel qualified
to reflect on what has happened and comment on the way forward. The
issue I am addressing is about the use of the words ‘encourage’ or
‘must’ as it relates to members of the public being obliged to provide a
copy of their presentations 24 hours in advance of presenting to Public
Access or Public Forums.

I understand that either today or at a meeting soon councillors will be
asked to consider a way forward.

To briefly reflect on the history of this issue:

In May 2022 councillors were asked to decide on the terms of the draft
meeting code that was to go on exhibition for a minimum period of 42
days as required within 12 months of the election of a new council.

Against the then GM’s recommendation, the newly elected councillors
voted unanimously to drop requirement for the advance submission of
Public Forum and Access presentations from the draft new code to go
on public exhibition. This issue had also been closely debated by the
previous Council with considerable community engagement.

In September 2022 after the community consultation process, the
councillors approved the Council’s new code which included that
advance copies of presentations be encouraged rather than required.

At the 28 February 2023 ESC meeting the new GM proposed several
changes to the existing meeting code, including a reduction in the
frequency of meetings to one per month. No mention in the relevant staff
report, or the associated draft of the proposed new code, of any
proposal to revert to providing an advance copy of a presentation. As
required by s.361 of the LG Act, this draft revised meeting code went on
public exhibition from 1/3/23 to 11/4/23.

To the recent 27 June ESC meeting where again, in the staff report in
the business papers for this meeting, no mention was made of any
reinstatement of the previously abandoned requirement for the advance
submission of Public Forum and Access presentations.

However, the day before the meeting, I noticed that this requirement had
reappeared in the code that was attached to that staff report. I
immediately brought that to the attention of some of the councillors.

When several councillors then protested at the meeting about the
reinsertion of this requirement into the meeting code without the legally
required public notice having occurred, the Mayor and the GM stated (on
advice from the Public Officer) that that proposed change had, in fact,
been in the consultation draft that had been publicly exhibited in March
and April.

This statement was untrue and importantly has since been apologised
for by the GM.

The webcast reveals some confusion then ensued. An amendment was
proposed by Clr Schutz and voted on. I am aware that at least one
councillor, and possibly more, accepted and voted on the amendment
based on the incorrect advice that the public had been invited to and so
had an opportunity to comment on a proposed change to that particular
aspect of the code.

So to now, where the governance issue is not resolved by an apology
and or commitment to this not happening again. There is a legal
requirement as previously noted and for that particular proposed change
to the code, the legally required period of public exhibition had, in fact,
not occurred.

This is not a storm in a teacup, or an attempt to make unnecessary work
for council staff. We, the public, and councillors, rely on correct
information being provided so the best decisions can be made.
Whatever the reason that incorrect advice was given to councillors, good
governance requires that Council are given the opportunity to reconsider
the Code of Meeting Practice based on correct advice in relation to this
particular issue of what was contained in the consultation version. A
simple reconsideration of that aspect, reverting to the use of ‘encourage’
as included in the consultation draft, is required.

I take you back to the recent reconsideration by Council of the creative
arts policy document. Initially incorrect advice that no submissions were
received on the consultation draft was provided to councillors by staff.
The Council made a decision based on this incorrect advice. This was
subsequently drawn to the attention of staff and as a result, quite
correctly, the matter was brought back to Council and reconsidered with
the correct advice from the staff about the consultation results. No
drama, a correction, a reconsideration and a resolution.

Errors happen and staff, and the council, must own errors when they
occur and correct the record and any decisions made. This issue will not
go away with an apology because legal requirements must be met.
Good governance relies on complying with legal requirements and on
decision making that is based on truthful information.

Bernie O’Neil

Co-Convenor

A Better Eurobodalla