NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

HABEMUS PAPAM!

Well, not quite, but almost as inspiring, you might think, after the vicissitudes of the last couple of years. 

Late in the afternoon a week ago, on 5 November 2015, our Shire councillors gathered in secret conclave to appoint a new Acting CEO to replace the present incumbent, Graeme Simpson.

Mr. Mark Dacombe will take up the position next Monday, 16 November, following the long-prayed-for departure of Mr. Simpson tomorrow.

On the evidence of correspondence signed by Mr. Simpson—but because it makes sense, obviously not written by him—it appears that Mr. Dacombe has been doing Mr. Simpson’s job for quite a while. 

That would accord with current practice at the Shire, where consultants are regularly brought on board to do the work of unqualified or less than competent senior staff.  

Yes, Mr. Dacombe is a consultant.  He is director of a firm called Localise Pty Ltd, with an office ‘in a charming character building in Maylands’ (I’m quoting from the firm’s website at http://wearelocalise.com/about-us/, which also gives an address in Almondbury Street, Mount Lawley.  Could those premises be one and the same?)

Localise operates under the slogan ‘Local Government at its Best’, which for reasons obvious to the people of York it might like to consider changing.

Those of us who attend the occasional council meeting have seen Mr. Dacombe sitting discreetly at the top table near the mentors and Mr. Simpson.  If you haven’t yet clapped eyes on him, this is he:

So, what else do we know about Mr. Dacombe?  Here are a handful of biographical facts, gleaned mainly from the FIGJAM website Linked In.

Mr. Dacombe hails from New Zealand.  He holds a master’s degree in public management from Victoria University at Wellington.  He graduated in 2006 while employed as CEO of Kapiti Coast District Council.   

(Setting a fine example for senior members of the Shire of York administration, who appear to have done little or nothing to acquire qualifications relevant to their jobs during many years of employment with the Shire.)

Before leaving New Zealand, Mr. Dacombe occupied various local government positions, several as CEO.  He was also employed as adviser on local government matters in the NZ Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.  

As a volunteer, he advised the Commonwealth Local Government Forum in the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea.

Mr. Dacombe seems to have got his first insights into the suppurating swamp that is local government in WA as CEO of Canning City Council.  He took up that job in February 2009. 

In May 2012, the mayor of the day, Joe Delle Donne, unilaterally and unceremoniously dumped Mr. Dacombe, setting in train a series of events that led to the Council’s suspension on grounds of ‘widespread governance issues’ and thereafter to several years of rule by commissioner that have only recently come to an end.   

There is no suggestion that Mr. Dacombe was in any way at fault. 

Since then, as well as his role as director of Localise, Mr. Dacombe has undertaken periods of service as Acting CEO with the Shires of Pingelly and Mingenew.

It’s clear that Mr. Dacombe has the runs on the board for the job of Acting CEO.  He is obviously a highly intelligent and competent administrator, something sorely needed in York.

My only quibble is that like that of former commissioner Best—and I will not extend the comparison—his language is laced with vacuous abstractions and bureaucratic platitudes. 

‘We bring a strong emphasis on engagement and representative community feedback; embedding leadership and ownership with the local government and its community; quality partnerships; real world insight and planning that makes a difference.’

That’s from the website mentioned earlier.  Does it have a precise meaning?  How do you 'embed leadership'? What exactly is a ‘quality partnership’? What on earth does ‘real world insight’ mean?

And what about the website’s assertion that ‘Local government at its best gives rise to thriving communities’?  Isn’t it equally plausible—perhaps more so—to say that ‘Thriving communities give rise to local government at its best’?  Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Never mind.  I have a good feeling about Mr. Dacombe.  If he is not only a capable administrator, but also has sufficient strength of character to resist the batted eyelash, the winsome smile, the turned-on tear and the targeted tantrum, I’m confident he will serve York very well.

*******

BENDIGO BANK: NOTICE OF AGM

*******

NEWSFLASH

The SAT member presiding over SITA’s Allawuna landfill appeal has announced that he is reserving his decision for 90 days. 

Perth Friday 20 November 2015

Posted at 9.40 am

*******

From: "J & K Schekkerman" <jschekkerman2@bigpond.com>

Date: 24 November 2015 7:26:08 AM AWST

To: "'Jan Schekkerman'" <jschekkerman2@bigpond.com>

Subject: Newsletter AVRA 24/11/2015

Avon Valley Residents Association Inc.

Newsletter 24/11/2015

Greetings All,

Summary of final week of SAT hearings:

The second and final week of the Tribunal hearings is over.

On the 19^th November and after summing up by each of the legal representatives for the applicant SITA, and the respondent the JDAP, Senior Member McNab advised that the decision would be reserved, and that due to the complexity of the case, a decision by the panel could not be expected before Christmas and that it may take the full statutory period of 90 days to determine. 

 

Leading up to this point, the planning experts took the stand and after cross-examination both remained firm on their respective for and against stance on the proposal. The JDAP’s position being that the ad hoc nature of the application is not in line with orderly and proper planning in the absence of an overall strategic plan. The JDAP planner was also resolute that the application was driven by commercial expedience rather than necessity, with existing capacity for waste able to cope until 2024 – 2030 while a more suitable site is located.

 

The General Manager of SITA, Niall Stock, took the stand and faced cross-examination over his witness statement. His statement content was pretty much the same as contained in his company’s various assertions made over the last few years. The only point of note was Mr. Stock’s answer regarding an estimate of external expenses to date that have been endured by them is approximately $3.1 million. Recently Mr. Stock, in reply to the same question by the printed media in relation to the Tammin – Cunderdin waste management study, stated that $1.1 million had been expended. A minor point, but indicative of the general rubbery nature of the facts provided by the applicant over time. 

 

YLAC & AVRA from the beginning:

In late October 2012 a group of concerned locals got together at the Sandalwood Yards to eventually form the York Landfill Action Coalition (YLAC) which later morphed into the incorporated entity of AVRA. Over the last three years we have distributed leaflets, conducted stalls at the markets and the IGA, arranged signs and banners, attended town hall meetings, council meetings, electors meetings, committee meetings and started our newsletters. All with a view to have the Council and Administration support the community and reject the SITA proposal.

 

With the help of the community this indeed came about with Council twice refusing the application. Below is the list of submissions/actions taken by YLAC and AVRA leading up to the final SAT hearing just completed:

 

·         Application referred to the EPA

·         Appeal to the Appeal Convenor’s Office

·         Two submissions to the SOY on the original and amended application

·         Two submissions to the DER on the original and amended application

·         Two submissions to the JDAP on the original and amended application

 

Of course it is history that Council and the JDAP each refused both applications.

 

The referral to the EPA, submissions to the Council and the first submission to the JDAP were based on issues around the environment, planning, traffic, amenity, tourism, agriculture, lifestyle etc.

 

The submissions to the DER were based on the environment and particularly ground water, mapping, liners and construction as it pertained to the hydrology and geology of site.

 

The second submission to the JDAP was based on hydrology and geology as it pertained to the ground water.

 

AVRA has been assisted throughout by Essential Environmental and Landform Research who provided environmental, hydrological  and geological services on a pro bono basis. Rockwater Pty Ltd provided hydrogeological services on a full fee paid basis. The Environmental Defenders Office provided (and still does) legal representation on a contribution and expenses basis.

 

Adopted strategy:

As described above, YLAC and AVRA contested the SITA application on matters similar to other submitters i.e. on issues based around the environment, planning, traffic, amenity, tourism, agriculture, lifestyle etc that could have a detrimental effect on life in the Shire of York.

 

All of the submissions by AVRA and the community resulted in the SOY planning office Responsible Authority Report that encompassed all of these issues. Council twice accepted the RAR, and twice it was recommended to the JDAP and considered in their refusal of both applications.

 

SITA appealed the first JDAP refusal and the matter headed to the SAT in April 2014. Three parties applied for interim third party intervenor status for the initial directions and mediation hearings. AVRA, K & R Davies and McLeod (solicitors for the SoY) were successful, but this status was conditional on having to formally apply again when the schedule for the full hearing was agreed and confirmed, which didn’t occur until late 2015.

 

Third party intervenor status enables the third party to participate in proceedings, address the bench, call and cross examine witness’s.

 

AVRA elected to concentrate on the ground water issue west of the Thirteen Mile Brook based on the applicants survey data, our consultants view on the matter and the attitude of SITA who had never adequately addressed this issue.

 

Because the JDAP are primarily concerned with planning matters, AVRA’s view was that any intervention application based on planning matters or indeed any matters that had already been canvassed by the JDAP via the SOY and the Responsible Authority Report would be doomed to fail.

 

As it turned out we were correct and at the hearings of the 8^th and 9^th of October 2015 the three Intervention Applications were responded to by Senior Member McNab with the following results:

 

The Intervention Application by R & K Davies was not granted (Court Transcript 08/10/15). Leave was granted to; “make a joint written submissionin respect of the application in relation to (but confined to) the issues raised in their application dated 1 October 2015 only.” (Tribunal Orders 09/10/15)

 

The Intervention Application by McLeods was not granted (Court Transcript 08/10/15). Leave was granted as per; “the Shire of York has leave tomake written submissions in respect of the application only in relation to the conditions that should be imposed should the Tribunal approve theapplication subject to conditions.” (Tribunal Orders 09/10/15)

 

The Intervention Application by AVRA was granted; “the Avon Valley Residents Association Inc. (AVRA) has leave to intervene in thisproceeding in relation to groundwater issues only, including hydrogeology and the potential impacts upon water quality, on the condition thatAVRA is not permitted to cross-examine any witnesses at the hearing other than any expert environmental witnesses in respect of groundwaterissues only, including hydrogeology and the potential impacts to water quality.” (Court Transcript 09/10/15 and Tribunal Orders 09/10/15)

 

Things were going according to plan to this point, but we were crushed at the outcome of the conferral of environmental experts as related to you in our last newsletter. However, hope springs eternal, it would be a brave SAT to overturn the JDAP as they are an independent body similar to the SAT. 

 

If the SAT decision goes against York we believe that the only avenue of appeal is to the Supreme Court, if there is an error in law in the decision.

 

Where to from here:

It has been a long and tedious process, three years of ups and downs with another wait on the pending decision. AVRA will be in recess until a decision comes down. In the meantime AVRA will have the accounts finalized, audited and placed on our website to fulfill our obligations as an incorporated body. A digital copy of reports, submissions, documents etc that may be of interest are available to members upon request.

 

General observations

On several occasions the SAT referred to the fact that the locations of new metro landfills away from the coastal plain, is an area that is without any policy guidance from the WA Planning Commission, the Waste Authority or the WA Parliament. It is AVRA’s assertion that our politicians are abrogating their responsibilities and as a consequence multinational waste disposal companies are picking on small councils whose Town Plan have a loop hole by not specifically mentioning waste disposal as a prohibited use. This could still  accommodate these proposals, but only via a scheme amendment. By present standards and policy settings, a nuclear power plant could be established in York, without any comments or intervention from our elected representatives.

 

AVRA thanks one and all for their ongoing support and we are still optimistic that the decision will go the York Community’s way. 

 

Denis Hill and Keith Schekkerman for AVRA Committee.