to gag or not to gag?

report from the roundtable – 11 jun

 

An interesting and very quiet night at council last night as the Mayor chose to exercise his right under the Yarra Ranges Meeting Procedures and Use of Common Seal Local Law 2007 to not allow councillors to speak to motions if the motion was not opposed.

It was a surprising turn of events given the Meeting Procedures were discussed at length at our private meeting a week earlier on the 4^th June where there were concerns expressed about the time frames Councillors took to debate (going beyond 5 minutes) but absolutely no discussion of not being able to speak to a motion should there be no opposition. It has been custom and practice at Yarra Ranges Council, since the return of councillors in 1997 post amalgamation, to allow councillors to speak to a motion whether there’s unanimous agreement or not.

I sat aghast last night, although a very short agenda with only two items, no opportunity to talk to how important they are in their own way. From my perspective it was a poor outcome for local democracy. I believe the public gallery has a right to know why councillors vote the way we do (and the record should reflect that too – all council meetings are recorded).

As I left the meeting a member of the public said to me “I like to know what the councillors think”, I couldn’t agree more, you have a right to understand why we vote the way we do even if we are all in furious agreement.

To me it looked like we were ‘rubber stampers’, like we had no ownership of the issue and I don’t believe the local law is operating in the best interest of open and transparent government.

I was also concerned that if there was no opposition to a motion, which was the case at last night’s meeting, there was no need for a show of hands, so not even a requirement to physically participate in the democratic process.

Clearly the local law is flawed and needs to change. I will be raising the issue at the next meeting of council on the 25^th June, the section concerned (S48 Moving a Motion) clearly needs review, needs discussion by all councillors to provide appropriate guidance to the meeting chair. (NOTE 13 June: Since writing this blog I have learnt that some councillors will be absent for the next couple of council meetings so I will be bringing this issue back to a later meeting in July). I was advised later that the Mayor had changed his mind and would allow the mover and seconder to speak at our next council meeting, however this is a matter of importance to all councillors and we should all have the opportunity to participate in how we would like our meetings to run and the best way to achieve that is through a review.

The objectives of the Yarra Ranges Meeting Procedures and Use of Common Seal local law are to:

• provide a mechanism which facilitates the good governance of the Council
• promote and encourage community participation
• regulate and control the election of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and any chairpersons for special committees
• control the use of the Council seal
• generally provide for the administration of Council's powers and functions.

It’s my view that the current provisions do not facilitate good governance and discourage participation by councillors, the community representatives.  

I hope that my colleagues support my motion for a review, the local law is clearly outdated, has never operated as written (up until last night) and needs an update to reflect the current practice at Yarra Ranges. The way it stands at the moment it allows for the chair to exercise the provision to its full extent and that’s not a good outcome.

And for the record, the two issues we voted on last night were Constitutional Recognition of Local Government and the Electronic Gaming Machine Gambling Policy and EGM Process Guidelines. Two really key and important issues in their own way, it’s very disappointing that there was no discussion around either.

samantha in the media

3MDR Roundabout
Interview with Graham Beal

Yarra Ranges Council rejects plan to fine people who feed cockatoos on private land
by Emily Webb
Free Press Leader
29 May 2013

Track works get back to nature
by Russell Bennett
Mail Newspapers
28 May 2013

hello cockie, your chew can continue

report from the roundtable – 28 may

I was bitterly disappointed to not receive majority support for a local law to prevent the backyard feeding of sulphur crested cockatoos in some parts of Yarra Ranges. I moved a motion, which was in turn seconded by Cr Cliff, but all other councillors did not support the local law.

Councillors in favour - council meeting 28 May:

Crs Dunn and Cliff

Councillors Against

Crs McAllister, Witlox, Callanan, Child and Cox

Councillors Absent

Crs Avery and McCarthy

It was at complete odds to voting patterns to support the local law in the past. At the council meeting of 26 Feb, 2013 the majority of councillors supported the public exhibition of the  local law, given the political will clearly wasn’t there, I wonder why they would seek to go through the motions, wasting valuable officer and community time in a public exhibition process and setting up false expectations for the community.

Councillors in favour of exhibiting the local law 26 Feb:

Crs Dunn, Cliff, Cox, McAllister, Callanan, McCarthy and Child

Councillors against:

Cr Witlox

Councillors absent:

Cr Terry Avery

Further to that councillors discussed the direction to proceed with the local law at an assembly (private meeting) of councillors on 5^th February 2013 where the consensus view of all councillors (note Cr Witlox was absent) was to proceed to a formal consultation process. If the will and commitment wasn’t there why proceed?

Community members I have spoken to about this are very disappointed, feeling let down, abandoned and frustrated by the council decision.

I put forward a comprehensive case as to why the local law was important for those extreme cases of backyard feeding and neighbouring property damage. I talked about the stress, both emotional and financial, the impact of cockatoo feeding has. I highlighted the link between proximity of feeding and chewing behaviour (at a community meeting in July 2009 the DSE categorically stated that damage to buildings was caused due to the feeding of the birds. It was also said that the feeding would be in and around the vicinity of the damage in a radius of approximately 100 to 200 metres).

I talked about satisfying the rules of evidence, that the local law wasn’t about ‘cockie police’ patrolling backyards and was a legal framework to use in the most extreme of cases.  I mentioned the health impacts both to birds and humans. It seems that my arguments fell on deaf ears.

In speaking against the motion Cr Cox said he would not support the local law as it did not include state government property, he said it was pointless until we had the cooperation of state government. Cr Cox is well aware that local government does not have jurisdiction over crown land and in my view if we waited for state government we’d be waiting forever. Cr Cox has supported the development of the local law up till last night’s meeting, as recently as Feb 27, 2013 he was talking up the local law to Red Symons and listeners on ABC774.

Cr Witlox spoke of his concern that innocent backyard feeding of birds would be the target of vexatious complaints and the local law may cause new problems. At least Cr Witlox has been consistent with his lack of support for the local law.

Cr McAllister spoke to two experts about the issue, Ian Temby, ex DSE Senior Policy Officer - Wildlife Damage Control Flora & Fauna Program, who supported a legislative framework as the next best step (Ian’s advice was invaluable in the development of education material back in 2009/10). She also spoke to Healesville Sanctuary who advised that a “community education program not a local law was the way to go”. Cr McAllister’s view was that an “education campaign with positive reinforcement” was a more effective approach even though she “hears the frustration of the community”.

Both Crs Child and Callanan did not speak to the motion but voted against it.

To those community members who have travelled a long road in dealing with this issue, waiting patiently for an efficient legal framework in which to tackle the issue of cockatoo damage from backyard feeders, who have seen concerted education campaigns on the issue fail in these extreme cases, I feel your frustration, the lack of understanding of what you deal with on a daily basis seems to be lost on my colleagues and I apologise for not making a successful case in your favour.

For those who are interested there has been a long history on this issue and it's highlighted on numerous other blog entries including:

- Public meeting at Burrinja June 2008 – link

- Urgent meeting convened with government and agencies 9 June 2009 – link
- Continuing cockie damage June 2009 – link
- More damage and advocacy June 2009 – link
- Community meeting re cockie damage in Kallista and Menzies Creek July 2009 – link
- Cockies chew power lines 14 July 2009 – link
- Community rallies against cockatoo feeding August 2009 – link
- Community meeting in Kallista re cockie damage August 2009 – link
- Council to consider options for legal framework September 2009 - link
- Council supports legal framework to deal with backyard feeding 8 September 2009 – link supported unanimously by councillors (Crs Cliff and McRae absent)
- Concerted education campaign commences January 2010 – link
- Replacement of damaged infrastructure January 2010 – link
- Education campaign starts April 2010 – link
- Council resolves to develop local law, advocacy and education campaign 13 April, 2010 – link supported 7 votes for, 1 against (Cr Cliff absent)
- Representations to modify license conditions for Grants Picnic Ground June 2010 – link
- Advocacy to state government 26 October 2010 – link
- Council supports public exhibition of local law 26 February 2013 - link supported 7 votes for, 1 against (Cr Avery absent)

samantha in the press

Yarra Ranges Council wants to ban the feeding of cockatoos in the Dandenong Ranges in bid to stop property damage
by Emily Webb
Free Press Leader
27 Feb 2013

Yarra Ranges Council opposes moves by Puffing Billy operators to allow permit exemptions for new building work
by Emily Webb
Free Press Leader
27 Feb 2013

Eastern Transport Coalition blames an oversight for leaving two Monash level crossings out of budget submission
by Tim Michell
Waverley Leader
26 Feb 2013

VicForests happy to talk with Yarra Ranges Council about move to area after ethical paper pledge retraction
by Kimberley Seedy
Lilydale Leader
25 Feb 2013

Belgrave residents this week can have their say this week on plans for a multi-purpose community space
by Emily Webb
Free Press Leader
24 Feb 2013

samantha in the press - local laws

Homeless help
Mail Newspapers
by Russell Bennett
19 April 2011

Camping Ban
Mail Newspapers
by Kath Gannaway
19 April 2011

local law passes

report from the roundtable - 12 apr

At this week's council meeting council had to consider the making of a local law to deal with a number of issues. This was the second time the local law was before us, back in January when the local law was first tabled, it raised the ire of groups and agencies who represent and help homeless people (see blog). The key issue at the time was the criminalisation of homelessness.

Although the local law covers off on a number of different matters, the issue which had the most attention was the part of the local law aimed at dealing with campers at Lillydale Lake and other parks around Yarra Ranges.

I moved the motion to make the local law. With that motion I also moved that an amendment be made to the Guidelines for Assessment, which is the document that provides guidance for staff on the interpretation and implementation of the law.

Since January, shire officers have been in contact with PILCH and other agencies around the wording of the local law and the Guidelines for Assessment. Councillors wanted to ensure that we picked up on concerns raised by advocates of homeless persons.

I noted in the draft that it failed to pick up an issue raised by both PILCH and the Salvation Army around our officers, should they indentify a person as homeless, the need to contact a relevant community agency to notify the agency of the existence and location of that homeless person (with their consent, of course). I thought it was important to include this in the Guidelines, it provides that bridge between council and homeless persons and connects people with help. In the event that a homeless person doesn't want assistance our local laws officers will provide them with a Homelessness Contact Card.

The Shire's local laws team have already been briefed by local agency, Anchor, so they will be better prepared should they indentify a homeless person when administering the local law. It's important to council that homelessness is dealt with in a sensitive manner, with respect and dignity and that homeless people are not disadvantaged by the local law.

Councillors supported the motion unanimously.

samantha in the press - local laws

Council bans Lillydale Lake campers Leader Newspapers by Kimberley Seedy 13 Apr 2011

samantha in the press - homelessness

'Sleeping rough' by-law deferred
Yarra Ranges Weekly
01 Feb 2011

Homeless stung
Mail Newspapers
by Kath Gannaway
01 Feb 2011

sleeping in cars - deferred for review

report from the roundtable - 25 jan

First meeting back for 2011 and there was a lot of attention given to our first item on the business paper, the making of the General Provisions Local Law 2010.

The local law had been developed to cover off on a number of things, however the item that caught the attention and ire of many community members, legal advocates and agencies was the part of the law that dealt with sleeping in cars.

As it was worded the draft law before council would have given council officers the ability to criminalise homelessness as it would be a breach of the law to sleep in your car. Council never intended the law to be applied in this way, it was really about having an ability to move on campers at Lillydale Lake, who are causing significant amenity impacts to locals who use the park.

I had come out publicly against supporting the law as it was written and had been working with officers on a solution. The best solution was to defer the making of the local law to give officers time to draft administrative guidelines and review the words of the local law so it wouldn't impact on the homeless.

In speaking to the deferral motion I reiterated to the gallery the law was only ever about addressing camping and was never about penalising the homeless. We need time to get the law right for the future, this council would never use this law against homeless people, but we need to get it right so any future council couldn't use it in this way.

It was a regrettable unintended consequence of the wording, the law was never about criminalising homelessness.

Council will work with legal advocates for homeless people and agencies involved with assisting homeless people to ensure the law achieves what council wants without penalising those most disadvantaged in our society.

Councillors voted unanimously to defer the local law, it will come back to us by the end of March, 2011 when we will consider it again.

samantha in the press - homelessness

Fears over new laws in Yarra Ranges
Lilydale Leader
by Emily Webb
25 Jan 2011

samantha in the press - homelessness

Council parking ban would 'punish' homeless
The Age
Farah Farouque
24 Jan 2011

samantha in the press - local laws

Yarra-Ranges bird scare law won't fly
Yarra Ranges Weekly
by Elisa Miller
2 Nov 2010

electronic bird scarers, local law still not right

report from the roundtable - 26 oct

Council had to consider the final version of the Electronic Bird Deterrent Local Law 2010. The law has been before us twice before.

It is a complex matter and raises the issues of tensions between agriculture, environment and residential areas when they're next door to each other.

I seconded a motion to resolve not to proceed with the making of the proposed local law and that the draft law be reconsidered as part of the Scare Gun Local Law review to commence in 2011.

I didn't want to see the draft law proceed for a number of reasons.

As it currently stands the draft law does not solve environmental issues and does not solve farmer's issues.

I was concerned that the exclusions zones prescribed did not go far enough or cover enough species. I thought that there should be at least a 1000mt exclusion zone, not only from Helmeted Honeyeaters, but known nesting sites of Powerful Owls and Sooty Owls too. The officer's report supported the suggested exclusion zones did take account of literature on the subject but it is my view that the literature in relation to this issue is far from conclusive.

I also had concerns about the times prescribed for use of the devices, farmers weren't allowed to use the devices before 7:00am and birds would have no trouble destroying a crop between sunrise and 7:00am.

This is netting over an apple orchard in Lysterfield. Netting can benefit farmers in many ways, it stops the prevalence of blemishes, sunburn and rub on fruit, stops hail damage as well as reducing chemical and water use, it also keeps birds and bats at bay too.

I had concerns about the electronic devices not being the most effective way to control birds and cited a recent report by the federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Managing Bird Damage to Fruit and Other Horticultural Crops. "Birds ignore sounds afer a short time if they are repetitive, emanate from the same point source, and pose no physical threat."

Council's Green Wedge Management Plan talks about council supporting sustainable farming and in my view electronic bird scaring devices are not the most sustainable choice for crop protection. It is my view that the more sustainable option to protect crops is netting, the DAFF report says "Netting overcomes concerns about the use of chemicals, animal welfare issues, and restrictions on the use of acoustic devices".

I don't think the draft law as it stands got it right, there's too many issues still outstanding and I think it needs more work. It really is a complex issue which needs more examination. The majority of councillors agreed.

Councillors for the motion:
Crs Samantha Dunn, Tim Heenan, Graham Warren, Chris Templar, Terry Avery and Len Cox
Against:
Crs Jeanette McRae, Richard Higgins and Noel Cliff.

samantha in the press - cockatoo feeding

Ban is for the birds
Mail Newspapers
by Casey Neill
14 Sep 2010

samantha in the press – bird scaring devices

Frightening birds

Mail Newspapers

by Kath Gannaway

24 Aug 2010

electronic bird scaring devices – out for comment

report from the roundtable – 10 aug

At last week's meeting council had to consider whether it was going to release for public comment the draft Electronic Bird Deterrent Local Law 2010.

I moved a motion to call for public submissions and give public notice of council's intention to make the local law. In speaking to the motion I talked about the unease I had about various elements of the law as it currently stands, particularly in relation to its silence on exclusion zones for species such as the Powerful Owls.

I talked about the importance for community input in relation to the local law as it is controversial in its nature given the span of hours of operation, noise generation and potential to effect fauna.

I also expressed concerns that I didn't believe that Electronic Scare Guns come under the definition of Sustainable Farming as outlined in the council report and council's recently endorsed Green Wedge Management Plan. To me, nets are a far more sustainable farming option, although an expensive option out of reach to some farmers. I think there's a strong advocacy role for council to play in relation to gaining support for farmers to use netting.

I look forward to public submissions on the local law, it's a complex matter, and I think it's important to hear community views.

curbing cockie crunching and munching

report from the roundtable – 13 apr

This week's council meeting saw council approve a concerted education campaign, a focussed advocacy effort and the development of a local law to address the issue of sulphur crested cockatoo feeding and chewing in the Shire.

A problem that has brewing for the last four years, it was time to put some focussed effort and attention into addressing the issue of cockatoo feeding. Feeding sulphur crested cockatoos sees the birds cause all sorts of damage to buildings, fixtures, fittings, forests and ferns, because instead of foraging for food in the wild the birds have a plenty of time spare to chew. Not only that, it is not good for the birds either.

These cockatoos are chewing away on the retaining walls at Grant's Picnic Ground in Sherbrooke Forest. Parks Victoria have committed to initiatives to restrict the feeding of birds at Grants Picnic Grounds which include a designated feeding enclosure. There will also be limits to the volume of seed sold from the kiosk and a prohibition on seed being brought into Grant's Picnic Grounds.

The cockies need to chew to keep their beaks well honed and in good health, it is a natural behaviour generally done whilst the birds are foraging for food, whilst they don't need to forage because of a constant supply of food, they do need to chew.

The damage the birds have caused in townships across the Dandenongs is incredible, the level of destruction quite unbelievable. Feeding of the birds has seen neighbour pitted against neighbour as frustration levels get higher and higher as destruction from cockatoos continues.

It is not only backyard feeding that is contributing to the problem. The cockatoo feeding at Grant's Picnic Ground saw Kallista under siege last year as the birds gnawed the community house, bollards in the village green, fixtures at the kinder, the historic mechanics hall, power supply lines and local residences.

Grant's Picnic Ground is about 100 metres from the Kallista PreSchool, the preschool suffered ongoing attacks from cockatoos on its wooden fixtures and fittings in 2009, costing parents and ratepayers a fortune. This money could be far better used than cleaning up after cockies.

It was time to tackle the issue head on. At a public meeting last year I gave a commitment to the community to look at the issue and investigate the legal instruments that could be used as an enforcement tool against feeding.

This week I moved the following motion:

That Council:

1. Lobby the Minister for Environment to modify the licence conditions for the restaurant at Grants Picnic Grounds to prohibit the sale of wild bird seed for the purpose of feeding sulphur crested cockatoos on the basis that it is putting the birds at risk.

2. Further seek the prohibition of feeding sulphur crested cockatoos throughout the Shire and support the provision of signage.

3. In unison with DSE, continue to campaign throughout the Shire to educate the community of the risks to the wild birds caused by feeding and associated
dependency. This should include tourist organisations who promote the feeding of wild birds in the Shire.

4. Commence the development of a local law in relation to sulphur crested cockatoo feeding for consideration by Council in Twelve months.

The motion was supported 7 votes for to 1 vote against.
(note: Cr Cliff was absent from this meeting)

electronic bird scarers – more work to be done

report from the roundtable – 23 feb

At this weeks council meeting councillors had to consider the creation of a new local law to control the use of Electronic Bird Deterrent devices.

The devices emit a noise of distressed and dying birds and are used by some fruit growers to deter birds from eating their crops.

Concerns about the new law have been raised by farmers, environmentalists, tourism operators all raising different points of contention about the law.

I held concerns about the effect of the devices on wildlife particularly Helmeted Honeyeaters, Powerful Owls and other endangered species in the shire. After hearing submissions I moved a motion to defer council’s decision to make the new local law.

Motion:
That Council defer the decision to make an Electronic Bird Deterrent Local Law 2009 until Council has considered the Green Wedge Management Plan recommendations and explore the opportunity for exclusion zones for Endangered fauna listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.

In supporting the deferral I spoke about the complexity of the new law, which was created because of the impact on people, however we are yet to be certain about the impact on wildlife. I think we have a responsibility to protect our endangered species and needed to do some work on identifying exclusion zones for the devices to be included within the local law.

We are very fortunate in Yarra Ranges to have Powerful Owls and Helmeted Honeyeaters and to ensure their ongoing best interests we need to use the precautionary principle when considering the impacts of these devices on these and other birds.

It is an issue where no one will be happy, because the local law doesn’t fulfil anybody’s needs, there is much more work to be done. One submitter reported to council that the VFF have suggested council give more time to the consideration of the local law as the EPA are currently drafting new guidelines for farming zones. This may have a direct impact on the operation of the local law which relies heavily on the EPA’s N3/89 Interim guidelines for the control of noise from industry in country Victoria which was released in 2000.

The consideration of Electronic Bird Deterrent devices also raises an advocacy role for council for assistance to farmers trying to protect their crops. Netting is a much more successful way to protect crops, with very little crop loss and the added benefits of quietness, however it is very expensive for farmers.

We are a unique shire, rich in environmental assets, with stunning vistas, high quality produce from a range of growers and farmers and a large and growing tourism industry. Balancing these is a complicated matter. Given the complexity of all the issues it was prudent to defer the making of the local law, councillors agreed and voted unanimously for a deferral.

burning off, how to work out windspeed?

When the new open air burning local law came into effect a new provision was that no burning be undertaken when wind speeds are greater than 15kph.

But how do you tell?

I have found the easiest way is to check the Bureau of Meteorology’s website and look up the Dunn’s Hill weather station (see link) or for those in the southern reaches of the shire it’s worthwhile checking a local weather station located at Hancock’s Daffodil Farm in Menzies Creek (see link).

In Residential Bushland areas (most of the Dandenong Ranges) burning off for fire reduction purposes is allowed only on Mondays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays between 8am and 6pm. Fires must be extinguished no later than 6pm.

Other laws that apply to burning off in Residential Bushland, Urban and Rural zones across the Shire include:

No lighting fires on Sundays.
No lighting fires on Smog Alert Days.
No lighting fires on Total Fire Ban Days.
No lighting fires during the Declared Fire Danger Period without a permit.
Burning off is permitted for fuel reduction purposes only.
Never burn when the wind speed is more than 15km/h.
Fires must be supervised at all times by an adult.
Water supply from a hose or a container with at least 10 litres of water must be available at the site of the fire.
A fire must not cause nuisance through excessive smoke outside of a property boundary or create a hazard on a public highway.
Burning wet or green vegetation and other materials which produce excessive smoke is prohibited.

Don’t know if you live in a Residential Bushland, Urban or Rural zone? Then check the maps in the Shire’s guide to the Open Air Burning Local law, visit this link to find out more.