NEWSFLASH—IT’S COUNCILLOR WALTERS AGAIN!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

NEWSFLASH

An update on Christian Chadwick

It seems that depot worker Christian Tarou Chadwick continues to enjoy a charmed life under the protection of senior employees at the Shire of York.

He appeared in Northam Magistrates Court this morning charged with aggravated burglary in a dwelling and assault occasioning bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation.

Those are very serious offences.  With his record, Mr. Chadwick could go to prison for several years. 

It is alleged that Mr. Chadwick’s partner drove him to his victim’s house after their children had complained of being bullied at school. 

It is further alleged that Mr. Chadwick was armed with a weapon of some kind when he allegedly broke down the victim’s front door and struck him ferociously about the head and knee.

When Mr. Chadwick allegedly broke into the house, the victim’s children were enjoying a party and singing ‘Happy Birthday’.

The alleged victim did not know Mr. Chadwick.

Out of town

I wrote recently that Mr. Chadwick no longer works for the Shire.  I was misinformed.

The truth is that he is now sent off to work on jobs ‘out of town’.  I surmise that this is to shield him from the eyes of an inquisitive public who might otherwise openly express dismay that he is still on the Shire payroll.

The fact that he is still on the payroll should surprise nobody.  He has friends in high positions on the Shire who probably have more clout than the Acting CEO—they certainly had more than the last one.

Councillors may have been brainwashed to believe there is nothing they can do to change the situation.

What’s more, Mr. Chadwick may have his own highly embarrassing story to tell about who has been protecting him, and why—and how he got his job in the first place. 

Mr. Chadwick is an accredited menace.  He is a known bully and allegedly an abuser of illicit substances.  He has cost the Shire or its insurers tens of thousands of dollars in compensation payouts. 

It’s time somebody in charge sprouted some cojones and showed him the gate.

(Photo courtesy of Mickey Mouse)

A NOTE ON FORMER COUNCILLOR HOOPER’S ‘MINORITY REPORT’

A person calling himself 'Joe Smith' has begun to send me pages of Pat Hooper’s report, one at a time, by email...

I presume he obtained a copy from the Shire of York.

The pages come slowly and at a price.  In exchange for each page, apart from the title page, I have been required to describe what I am wearing.

Here's the conversation so far.

JAMES (on receiving the title page):  Thanks, Joe.  Do you have the complete document?

JOE:  Only if you tell me what your (sic) wearing.

JAMES:  A Batman mask, black pantyhose, a diaphanous nightie and wellies.

JOE:  Oooooh yes, that's good.  G string, boxers or Y fronts?

JAMES:  G string of course, tied with a little red bow.  I can sense your mounting excitement.

JOE:  Ahhh, yes yes yes ahhhhhhh.  Please please send a photo.

JAMES:  You seem to be typing very slowly.  Are you using both hands? 

Joe has not yet responded to my last comment.  I suppose he is sulking because I didn’t send him a photo.  (I don’t really own a Batman mask.)

I think we can reasonably assume that the name 'Joe Smith' is a pseudonym, though not of the report's author, who as a former teacher would know the difference between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’.

I doubt that Joe will send any more pages.  Don’t fret: if, as seems likely, the first couple of pages of the redacted report are representative of the whole, there won’t be much to read and there’ll be precious little if anything worth reading. 

Come on, Mr Hooper, do the right thing by your friends and admirers.  Send me an un-redacted copy of your report.  You’ll feel so much better when you see your handiwork in its full glory taking pride of place on the blog.

POSTSCRIPT:  This afternoon I learned that a minimally redacted copy of the 'minority report' is now available on the other blog, together with an incisive commentary by David Taylor.  Congratulations, David and whoever else was responsible for bringing the 'report' to light.

You can find report and commentary at http://shireofyork6302.blogspot.com.au/.  

There's also a photo of Pat deeply engaged in conversation (is 'conspiring' too strong a word?) with David 'Sasquatch' Morris of the DLGC, Morris's colleague Andrew Borridge (largely hidden behind Mr Morris) and Gail Mazuik. Pat had just voted with the other councillors and everyone else to oppose the proposed suspension of Council. It seems Pat was too afraid of the public mood to vote according to his conscience.  

(Click on images to enlarge them)

THE UNTOUCHABLES

Never mind what the law says, senior staff at the Shire of York can do pretty much what they like—and have done so for years, without fear of check or retribution

As we all know, local government in Western Australia is administered—or supposedly administered—in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and associated regulations. 

You can look up the Act and regulations on the website of the Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC).  The DLGC is the state government department charged with enforcing the legislation and keeping a watchful eye on the activities of local governments across the state.

Local governments play an important role in providing employment for residents of their communities.  The Shire of York is no exception.  At present, it has a fluctuating workforce of around 60.  I say ‘fluctuating’, because as we have seen in recent times it happens now and then that employees leave, get a payout and come back a few months later for another nibble at the Shire of York cherry.

As an employer, the Shire of York, like all other local governments in WA, is bound by principles set out in Section 5.40 of the Act.

The principles most relevant to the issues raised in this article are contained in sub-sections (a), (b), (c) and (e).  These read as follows:

‘(a) employees are to be selected and promoted in accordance with the principles of merit and equity; and

(b) no power with regard to matters affecting employees is to be exercised on the basis of nepotism or patronage; and

(c) employees are to be treated fairly and consistently; and…

(e) employees are to be provided with safe and healthy working conditions in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984…’

Clear?  Simple?  Unambiguous? Easy to understand?  Not, apparently, for the Shire of York.

Part 1.  The Charmed Life of Christian Tarou Chadwick

Many of you will know that my friend David Taylor, who writes regularly for our sister blog at http://shireofyork6302.blogspot.com.au/, has published an excellent article dealing with the appointment and criminal record of Mr. Christian Chadwick, who is due shortly to front court in Northam for offences committed in Grey Street several months ago. 

If you haven’t read David’s article, I exhort you to do so.  He provides evidence to show that in 2009 Mr. Chadwick, a New Zealand national, was convicted and sent to prison for various violence, driving and drug offences. 

The violence offences included threats to kill and assaulting public officers. Among other merry japes, he threw a multanova operator into Albany Highway in the belief that she had taken a photo of his car.

Judge Robert Mazza of the District Court described Mr. Chadwick’s conduct as ‘spectacularly dangerous’. He sentenced Mr. Chadwick to three years in prison.  He also disqualified him from holding a driving licence for six months; revoked his extraordinary licence; and fined him $2800.

The fact that Mr. Chadwick had an extraordinary licence to be revoked indicates a history of traffic offences, perhaps including ‘driving under the influence’.

A mystery

In 2011, Mr. Chadwick was released from prison and came with his partner and their children to York.  Before long, he was a depot worker with the Shire. 

Here begins a tangled mystery, which I shall try to unravel.

It is said that the job in the depot to which Mr. Chadwick was appointed had previously been earmarked for a young man whom the Shire was then employing as a trainee.

I'm told that once Mr Chadwick had joined the Shire workforce, there was no job for the young man in question, and he had to leave.  

The job as advertised stipulated the possession of a current driving licence.  Mr. Chadwick did not have a driving licence at the time.

No doubt the Shire supported an application to the magistrate for an extraordinary licence, on the basis that Mr. Chadwick’s job required him to drive.

Fairly early in the course of his employment, Mr. Chadwick began a career of workplace bullying, involving taunts, unpleasant practical jokes and threats of physical violence, resulting over time in the departure of at least three employees. 

One of those employees, Mr. Richard Smith, a person of Aboriginal heritage, took the Shire to court for constructive unfair dismissal.  He had left his job as a reaction against a campaign of racist bullying launched by Mr. Chadwick.

I am reliably informed—not by Mr. Smith, whom I don’t know and have never met—that his claim was settled out of court,  resulting in a significant payout by way of damages.  I’m told the payout was in the region of $50,000.

Later, Mr. Chadwick’s bullying caused another worker to go on compensation leave for several months before receiving, quite recently, a final payout from the Shire.  I’m told—not by the worker concerned, whom I don’t know and have never met—that the payout in this case was somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000. 

You might have thought that after this the Shire would have sacked Mr. Chadwick.  It did not.

As noted above, the Shire is required by statute to maintain a safe and healthy workplace. Can any workplace be considered safe and healthy that would tolerate Mr. Chadwick’s bullying?

I should add that Mr. Chadwick was not only a bully himself, he also inspired others to do a bit of bullying on their own account or to act as his accomplices.

What the Shire knew

You may have wondered how and why Mr. Chadwick was given a job at the depot in the first place. David’s article displays a letter dated 4 December 2014 from former Acting CEO Graeme Simpson admitting (or boasting) that ‘…the Shire was well aware of Mr. Chadwick’s past when his appointment was made’.

To my mind, that letter, along with Mr. Chadwick’s charmed life as a Shire employee, reveals an astonishing degree of contempt for the York community on the part of the Shire administration. 

Mr. Simpson must surely have known that a person of Mr. Chadwick’s character and criminal antecedents might represent a danger to his fellow-workers.

He must have known that Mr. Chadwick’s driving history indicated not only his contempt for the law, but also that he had the potential while driving Shire vehicles to endanger other road users in York.

That knowledge must also have occupied the minds of senior staff responsible for employing Mr. Chadwick when he emerged from prison.

So—how did this improbable chain of events come to pass?  Who got Mr. Chadwick on to the Shire payroll?  Why has Mr. Chadwick enjoyed an undeserved level of security in his job, notwithstanding a pattern of misconduct that should have led to his early dismissal? 

To put the matter more simply—who’s been protecting him, and why?

‘Aunty’ Tyhscha to the rescue?

I won’t pretend I can give definitive answers to those questions.  Instead, here are some disturbing allegations, none of them new, to which I invite the Shire to respond.

1.  It is alleged that the Deputy CEO, Tyhscha Cochrane, was instrumental in ensuring that Mr. Chadwick got the job and that despite the danger he posed to workmates and the general public was allowed to keep it. 

2.  It is alleged that Ms Cochrane insisted on Mr. Chadwick remaining in the job, even when other senior staff had expressed the opinion that perhaps it would be better to let him go.

3.  It is alleged that Ms Cochrane has maintained, since well before he went to prison, a long-standing relationship with Mr. Chadwick and his partner. 

I have not been able to pin down the precise nature and extent of this alleged relationship.  Some have suggested that Mr. Chadwick’s partner is a member of Ms Cochrane’s extended family, which might account for Mr. Chadwick’s customarily addressing and referring to Ms Cochrane as ‘Aunty Tyhscha’.  I suppose he might be a nephew or cousin of Ms Cochrane's, though his  New Zealand origin seems to make this a little unlikely.

Either possibility would raise the spectre of nepotism—i.e. misusing one’s authority and influence to give preference to family members.

On the other hand, if the alleged relationship is simply one of friendship, based for example on shared interests or an exchange of past favours, that would raise the spectre of patronage—i.e. misusing one’s authority and influence to confer benefits on one’s friends.

No comeback

What puzzles me, though, is why, if the above allegations are true, Ms Cochrane as a very senior officer of the Shire would stick out her neck so far for somebody as low in the food chain as Mr. Chadwick.  Surely she would be worried about exposure, leading to disgrace and loss of her highly paid job?  Wouldn’t she have to resign?

Relax.  Why should she worry? There’s no comeback for senior members of the Shire administration.  They are untouchable. 

The supposed local government watchdog has made it plain over many years that it doesn’t give the proverbial hasty act of copulation about what senior shire administrators get up to at public expense.

They can employ close relatives who like themselves have no qualifications relevant to their jobs; persecute ratepayers who annoy them; dish out preferential treatment to family members and friends, or cover up wrongdoing by falsifying public records—and the high priests of probity at the DLGC will never so much as bat an eyelid.

As for the Shire Council, it’s been hypnotized for decades into believing that no matter how badly staff members behave, it is powerless to intervene.  It’s true that only the CEO can exert discipline over the staff.  In the past, the Council has tended to forget, or failed to care, that it can insist on the CEO bringing errant staff into line. 

And as we know to our cost, CEOs in York almost invariably come down on the side of their staff, regardless of right and wrong.

If the allegations concerning Deputy CEO Cochrane and Mr. Chadwick are true—and of course they may not be—she should be asked to resign.  In that case, if she refuses, she should be fired. 

As for Mr. Chadwick, I’m told the Shire no longer employs him.  It appears that he threatened or assaulted yet another workmate recently and was told—at last!—to take his skill set elsewhere.

Part 2.   Booze, cannabis, and crack cocaine

Mr. Chadwick is not only a serial bully and convicted traffic hooligan.  It seems he has other dubious claims to fame.

Thanks to some public-spirited individuals, I recently obtained sets of contemporaneous notes taken at Shire staff meetings held respectively on 3 September 2014 and and 3 February 2015. 

The purpose of both meetings was to consider the situation of the Shire worker mentioned earlier as having been forced by Mr. Chadwick’s bullying to take leave on worker’s compensation.

I have no doubt the notes are genuine.  However, to protect the identity of my sources, I will not be posting them as photos on this blog.

Meeting on 3 September 2014

Members of Shire staff present at this meeting, in addition to the victimised Shire worker, were Acting CEO Michael Keeble; Human Resources Officer, Gail Maziuk; and Depot Supervisor, Peter Moore.

One of the topics raised at the meeting was that of the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs on Shire premises. It was alleged that workers usually remained at the depot drinking alcohol for a couple of hours after work.

Mr. Keeble declared that the alcohol issue would be resolved by making the depot alcohol free.  This was already on the go. Workers had been given one week to drink the contents of the depot refrigerator (!).  After that, no more alcohol would be allowed on the premises.

In fact, said Mr. Keeble, he intended to introduce without undue delay a regime of random drug and alcohol testing. 

At some point, one of the participants alleged that Christian Chadwick was a user of crack cocaine as well as cannabis. Mr. Chadwick’s behaviour, he said, could become more hazardous to himself and others if he continued using crack.

Ms Mazuik asked both Mr. Keeble and Mr. Moore if they knew about drug use at the depot.  Both said yes, they did know.  It isn’t clear from the notes how long they had known about it or if Ms Maziuk herself had known that it was going on.

However, Mr. Keeble said he had not known about the drinking at the depot after work.

As comments on the blog have made clear, Mr. Keeble’s promise to introduce drug and alcohol testing was not fulfilled. 

It has been alleged that it was Ms Maziuk who killed it, by threatening Mr. Keeble with worker unrest if such a regime were to be introduced.  If she did, that would hardly be the action of a responsible HR Officer.

(It has also been alleged that Ms Maziuk’s conduct towards Mr. Keeble was a factor in the latter’s decision to resign as Acting CEO.)

Perhaps Ms Maziuk shared the view expressed by an official of the Australian Services Union that alcohol and drug testing risks breaching workers’ privacy.

Much more important than workers’ privacy is workplace and public safety.  This is especially the case at a time when drugs far more dangerous than cannabis, like crack and ice, are freely and cheaply available even in small rural communities like York.

Meeting on 3 February 2015

At this meeting, lasting just over an hour, the Shire was represented by Gail Mazuik; Depot Supervisor Peter Murray; and Alan Rourke, Works Manager.  The victimised worker was also present, as were a psychologist, a rehabilitation provider and an injury management consultant from LGIS.

Mr. Keeble’s replacement as Acting CEO, Graeme Simpson, did not attend.

The psychologist brought up the issue of Christian’s drug use.  Ms Maziuk said— somewhat surprisingly, since she had had five months to investigate it—that that was ‘only an allegation’. 

The psychologist then asked if the Shire had a drug policy.  Mr. Rourke said there was no Shire policy for drugs or for alcohol.  The Works Supervisor had authority to send people off site if they appeared to be ‘under the influence’.  He said any drug and alcohol policy adopted by the Shire would have to be approved by Council.

The discussion turned to the continuing consumption of alcoholic beverages at the depot.  According to the Depot Supervisor, drinking after work now only took place on pay night, i.e. once a fortnight.  Mr. Rourke said the CEO (presumably Mr. Simpson) had decreed that drinking on the premises could take place, provided it was not to excess, on pay night, at Christmas and at ‘send offs’. 

Some questions for Gail Maziuk

Somebody should ask Ms Maziuk:

1.              As HR Officer, does she agree that the appointment and continuing employment of Christian Tarou Chadwick was not, and has proved not to be, in the best interests of his workmates, of the Shire or of the York community in general?

2.              If she does not agree, how then would she justify keeping him on the Shire payroll after his bullying activities had led to legal action followed by significant payouts from the Shire’s insurers?

3.              It is alleged that she conspired or acted in concert with DCEO Tyscha Cochrane to protect Mr. Chadwick from the consequences of his wrongdoing.  Is that true? 

4.              Are other employees, involved with Mr. Chadwick in harassing workmates, still employed by the Shire?  If so, have they been disciplined or counselled?

5.              She would (or should) have known that Mr. Chadwick had been convicted of drug offences before coming to work for the Shire.  How did she deal with allegations made in September 2014 that he was currently a user of cannabis and crack cocaine?  What efforts if any did she make to check if the allegations were true?

6.              Is it true that she opposed Acting CEO Keeble’s endeavours to institute a regime of random drug and alcohol testing?  If so, what were her reasons for opposing it?

7.              What is her present attitude to random drug testing, bearing in mind that many businesses in WA, and more than a few local governments, have adopted it?

8.              It has been alleged that Ms Maziuk has taken a prominent role in organising staff complaints about members of the public who ask embarrassing questions about the Shire.  Is that true?  In her view, is it proper, and if so why, for an HR Officer to act as a spokesperson for staff, an organiser of staff protests or a representative of a staff trade union?

9.              What qualifications does she have, or is she studying to obtain, to carry out the duties of a Human Resources Officer or any other senior position in local government?

Readers, please understand how unlikely it is that these questions will ever be asked of Ms Maziuk, let alone answered.  The point and purpose of asking such questions is to reveal truths and correct misapprehensions.  For that to happen, people have to care about the truth.  A good many so-called ‘ordinary’ people do care, but from the standard bureaucratic point of view they count for nothing except as donors of gravy to the local government gravy train. 

Mercedes, anyone? 

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.