Letters To The Editor - May 3, 2018

Shire’s children deserve aquatic facility

Dear Editor,

It is encouraging to read that the Surf Coast Council has worked hard to gain state government funding for the new stadium adjacent to the existing stadium at Surf Coast College, though will the entire Shire see the benefit (or mainly the college and North Torquay residents)?

The ratepayers of Surf Coast Shire recently showed their support for an aquatic facility but the council decided that this was not a viable proposal.

Did the ratepayers press council for this new stadium or was it another facility only to benefit a few?

It appears the buildings and the like that would be of value to all ratepayers seem to get ignored or decided against for reasons only known to the council (though the councillors are supposed to represent all residents).

Surely the residents of Jan Juc, Anglesea, Winchelsea and Lorne (together with the rest of the Shire), not just North Torquay, warrant facilities and other benefits for their use and enjoyment.

Levies imposed on new subdivisions help these areas receive new community facilities. Council needs to consider the wider rate base.

I know we are privileged to live on the idyllic Surf Coast, but our children at least deserve an aquatic facility that can be used all year round.

We should not have to go outside the shire to enjoy such facilities.

Richard Porter
Jan Juc

Kindness to strangers

Dear Editor,

Having just spent a few nostalgic days at Queenscliff during Anzac week, I would like to thank two young men that gave us 80-year-olds a buzz. At the Anzac service in the Fort, standing with everyone else on the soft spongy grass for the hour long service. My husband who is a bit wobbly on his feet, sat down on the grass. Later he had trouble standing up. We would like to thank the two young men who firstly, provided a white plastic chair from somewhere and later my husband was helped to his feet and supported. As they just appeared from the crowd, many thanks to them as we remember their kindness to strangers.

Gwen & Ken McDonald
Box Hill

The rights of ratepayers in Geelong

Dear Editor,

I had always wondered what, if any, are the rights of ratepayers at Geelong council.

You may “ask questions” of council, at regular meetings.

There is no assurance of a satisfactory answer. A “straight reply” or response is not always offered.

You become “the person asking the question” at council.

If there is an oversight or misunderstanding, speaking is precluded, no second question is allowed, and question cannot be repeated.

No conversation can be permitted, in the local law for the conduct of Question Time, at the City of Greater Geelong. They omit to ask you to be courteous, and “address the Mayor”.

This evidently is unworkable. These guidelines are disregarded by the Mayor and need changing – “by email” is not suitable.

Matters “not the business of Council” are refused, yet the pot-hole at the corner may be something for VicRoads, or for CoGG.

What is more, a list is given of questions which will be disallowed by the Mayor, after they have been asked. You will not be told why.

“Vilification” is omitted, I think; therefore, it is allowed.

You may not “embarrass” Council; clearly no criticism can be accepted.

This manifest anxiety to instruct the Mayor on legal defense of council against the public is clumsy and excessive, void of mutual rights, and in this badly mistaken.

Question Time local law (of 2018) and the notes supplied at the door are silent on disagreements and complaints, and ratepayer rights.

Such restrictions and “lack of transparency” are by far not the norm in organisations today, as we well know, and are quite unusual.

“Submissions” by speakers are admitted in the local law, yet deleted from the notes issued to the public.

The ratepayer, who foots the bills, is no better than the lowest of the low.

This attitude is endemic, customary at Geelong since amalgamation, and much to the discredit of council.

Ratepayer rights have been long neglected in formal relations of our council with the public, attention to this and correction is needed today, as I have already pointed out at meetings of councillors.

Peter Linaker
Ocean Grove

Northern Bellarine dog-law history

Dear Editor,

This letter is to convey to you the history and status of the dog control issue, which is currently being addressed by the 2017 release of a draft plan by Bellarine Bayside Committee of Management (BBCM).

Firstly, it is important to identify what dog control bylaws/guidelines/rules are currently in place for the Portarlington, Indented Head and St Leonards coastal areas.

In July 2010, BBCM released a document which outlined proposed dog control provisions for the 24 kilometres of foreshore Crown land and beaches from Pt Richards boat ramp to Edwards Point.

These proposed provisions were never adopted or implemented by City of Greater Geelong (COGG), who are the responsible authority empowered to enact as law and to enforce these types of bylaws.

There are no existing lawfully enforceable dog control bylaws applicable to the Northern Bellarine.

Various interest groups and local media seem to believe that the 2010 provisions are currently enforceable and rely on this assumption to wrongly castigate people perceived to be in some way not complying. Interpretations and hearsay surrounding these proposed provisions have contributed to ongoing misinformation which has been readily adopted as fact.

Fast forward to May 2017 and we are presented with a Draft Dog Management Plan issued by BBCM.

This document was not widely distributed but made available for viewing, and after a request a copy was made available.

This Draft Plan included some very restrictive constraints on where and when dogs could be walked and various on/off-leash conditions.

Following the release of the 2017 draft sporadic articles have appeared in the local media indicating implementation by COGG was eminent.

A public meeting had been planned to address residents’ concerns with the draft plan however this did not proceed due to a meeting between BBCM and the Woofers and Walkers group.

The outcome of that meeting was a revised Draft Plan which, according to the Woofers and Walkers, satisfied their concerns although they could not expand further due to a commitment to BBCM not to tell anyone what the revisions were.

We have requested a copy of the revised Draft Plan a number of times, but as to date these requests have been ignored.

BBCM has been quoted by local media as having widely consulted the community in justification to support their plans to have a Dog Management Plan implemented ASAP. The community has not been consulted adequately as the revised Draft Plan, which BBCM has referred to COGG has not been distributed to residents.

Our requests to COGG and BBCM over the last 12 months have had a very mixed response. Steve Sodomaco (COGG), has been very co-operative and has helped us understand the process which must be followed.

On the other hand, BBCM have not, until very recently, acknowledged any contact/requests and seem to have a siege mentality, which is evident with all their dealings with residents in their jurisdiction.

We specifically chose to retire to the Bellarine and the availability to be able to freely walk our dog was a very important part of our property selection criteria.

Lawrence & Noelle Seery
Indented Head

Spectrum auction worries

Dear Editor,

Minister for Regional Communications, Senator Bridget McKenzie, continues to sidestep concerns that up to 200,000 regional Australians stand to be disadvantaged by the planned 3.6GHz spectrum auction.

Early this year, the Government gave the go-ahead to the spectrum auction as proposed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) despite concerns from regional-based Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs).

Unfortunately, Senator McKenzie has been missing in action; failing to address the concerns Labor and local WISPs have raised. The Minister still has to answer questions, including:

Is the Minister satisfied the ACMA has done all it can to find “like for like” spectrum for the WISPs?

Is the Minister satisfied the ACMA has adequately examined market and sharing solutions for the WISPs?

Is the Minister satisfied that booting the WISPs out of the 3.6GHz spectrum won’t result in a loss in quality of broadband, or a loss of jobs and services, in the regional Australia?

Labor supports the planned spectrum auction and welcomes moves to clear the way for higher-value 5G services but believes the very real concerns of the WISPs have not been adequately addressed. It’s time the Minister step up to the plate and look after the interests of regional Australia, otherwise there is a serious risk that regional customers who rely on WISP services will be worse off.

Stephen Jones MP
Shadow Minister for Regional Communications