NO MERRY XMAS AT WHITE GUM AIR PARK- but maybe a better New Year.

A multi-million dollar tourism development in the Avon Valley suffered a tragic setback just a month before Christmas

In November, Gordon Marshall, one of the proponents of a bold plan to bring two retired Boeing 737-200 airliners to White Gum Air Park, near York, died in an aircraft hanger on the property.

Mr. Marshall was White Gum Air Park’s senior flight instructor,  a Director of Sky Sports Flying School and part of the park’s tourism development team.

One of the air park proposals is to attract tourists from all over Australia and the world to view and interact with these giants of the skies, relocated in a rural setting.

A similar project in Queensland, with a Boeing 747 displayed in the town of Longreach, is now attracting over 40,000 visitors each year.

Despite this- currently local government regulators appear intent on refusing to allow visitors to see the 737’s, on private property within the local government area and are also said to be attempting to police the future flight plan development for the air park.

However close friends and business colleagues are determined to ensure Mr. Marshall’s death and any local government bureaucracy will not prevent the project from going ahead as planned.

“The last 18 months has been pure hell for all of us with our dreams seemingly turning to dust. This is even though airport planning at a regional level is entirely at the discretion of the local airport owners, aircraft noise and traffic movements are not under the control of any local government and an already proven successful  business venture should not be prevented for no good reason” a friend said.  

‘‘Knowing Gordon for 15 years I’m sure  he would want us to continue, so we are all determined to make White Gum Air Park’s restored Boeing 737’s his legacy no matter what it takes’’.

The reaction of local businesses is also a stimulus for the plan to go ahead. Gordon was so passionate about this project he was the one who canvassed the majority of businesses in the town.

“We had 100% support”, a director of this tourism development said.

Fifty four local businesses support us and we had 316 individual signatures on a petition that has been sent to the Minister for Tourism. So one wing of one of the aircraft has already arrived at the property and plans are underway for the delivery of the other wing and then the fuselage in the coming months’’.

“Gordon would really like that’ he said.

David Taylor

Lifeline 13 11 14- beyondblue 1300 22 4636.

TIME WAITS FOR NO-ONE- especially SAT!

With their workdays filled with massive decisions on a better future for York, the Shire of York Administration sadly forgot to check the calendar and who they were really dealing with regarding the Allawuna Farm environmental debacle. 

Firstly the alleged ‘thumbs-up’ for the Shire’s position by the Minister for Planning, Rita Saffioti, could just as well have been the middle digit as she has every right to say it is actually none of her business and probably did- and certainly will when push comes to shove.

Never trust a wounded elephant or a politician. Her correspondence may have contained a few of the right platitudes but the underlying message could well have  been ‘Shire of York emptor’- York beware, meaning some due care is possible, but forget any responsibility.

And of course the government department that Ms. Saffioti takes care of, called the Department of Planning, contains the West Australian Planning Commission that appears to have been considered another potential friend by Chief Executive Officer, Paul Martin, and his executive crew.

Certainly this department claims to consider all interests including environmental and community wants. Unfortunately it also considers both economic and political needs so if Allawuna Farm is the cheapest alternative, the proponents have lobbied cleverly and the dump is not going to be in a Labour held seat- then guess what!

So read this shire sob story and weep:- and remember ‘implied’ means maybe yes-or maybe no and ‘not complied with’ means the shire did not do what it was supposed to do!

"Therefore, whilst the 42-day timeframe to provide the executed documents was not complied with, it was understood at the time that there was an awareness and implied level of consent to the Shire’s position within the correspondence between the Shire on the one hand, and the office of the Minister and the Western Australian Planning Commission on the other hand."

 A little assumption is a very dangerous thing.

And now the shire has to deal with a gaggle of quasi-intellectuals including lawyers, accountants, psychologists, architects and a midwife called the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

Would they care that WA has the worst earthquake tremors in the nation with  5.7 and 4.7 magnitude quakes in the South West this year. ( Both Meckering and York are in this area of instability. )

And given that these earthquakes were at a shallow depth they would probably tear the walls of a landfill site apart. Would this register on SAT’s Richter Scale?- probably not!

The fact that the most recent road death statistics show that 8 people have died and 32 seriously injured on Great Southern Highway between the Lakes and St. Ronan’s well between 2001 and 2016 probably does not register either.

Nor would the fact that heavy haulage movements will increase a massive 3.5 times, per day-existentially increasing the possibility of road trauma by a similar amount.

So good luck with SAT because there is probably not one environmentalist among them, not one of them lives in the Wheatbelt and maybe none of them has ever spent time in the town of York.

Cr Ferro sporting

No landfill attire 

Therefore congratulations go to President David Wallace and his team, some elected because of their  populist  stance against the rubbish tip at Allawuna and CEO Paul Martin whose trust in others is quite astounding.


David Taylor. 

ANOTHER DOG’S BREAKFAST

You should never let an arsonist play with matches or a local government make its own local laws which are already offences in common or criminal law.

Time and time again critics of local government tell administrators and councillors not to make up local laws, by-laws, statutes. principles and guidelines as a knee-jerk reaction to situations they have  no ability to handle, or should keep their noses out of.

Too often these laws such as the new Local Government Property Amendment Local Law 2018 are a cut-and-paste miasma with many questioning what T.F does it mean and who T.F will actually enforce it.

One absolute classic is in Division 4-Aerodrome (Airport) 5.6 regarding the restrictions the shire places on you when you and your beloved pooch arrive at Terminal 2, at York International Airport.

Your dog is not allowed unless-
(a) the animal is being air freighted from the aerodrome
(b) the animal has been air freighted to the aerodrome
(c) the person is authorised to do so by the local government (read Shire of York here.)
     (probably as a sniffer-dog to locate the stash of meth-amphetamines)

You can probably add goats, chooks, cattle and sheep to those not permitted. However there may be sniffer-pigs.

You could probably ask David Wallace or your local councillor- or your cheery administrator, such as Paul Martin, what airport are they referring to- and why do they have such a fetish about when, where, how, why and with what aeroplanes fly within shire airspace when it would be in everyone’s best interest if they left it to the Department of Civil Aviation and its determination of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. (Aeronautical airspace is Commonwealth property and the Shire of York owns bugger-all of it.)

In Part 1 Clause 1.2, the definition of ‘Boat” has been deleted. Possibly because most sane people would not put a boat in the murky depths of the Avon River in and around York.

The rest seems to be mainly targeting aquatic facilities such as the dilapidated York Swimming Pool and the Health Act so they can charge culprits $125 who are caught peeing in the pool- beyond a reasonable doubt.

‘Reasonable’ seems to be a Shire of York buzz-word.

So what is the Shire’s definition of a reasonable person and what could be considered by the shire of York as deleterious to the reasonable physical, mental or social well being of a person (whether reasonable or not)?

Is a reasonable person considered to be someone who is taking their medication to combat chronic schizophrenia or has their Post Traumatic Stress Disorder under control?

Who then is the arbiter of reasonable, Mr. Wallace? Mr. Martin? Or both- as each one is a signatory to the documents?

The Shire of York uses the word ‘nuisance’  to define a person who it thinks is not a reasonable person and who  needs to be fined at least $125 for their indiscressions and/or inappropriateness for the 13 prescribed offenses.

So the decision is if a person stands up at the next monthly Council Meeting and asks Paul Martin ‘has he found another job yet?’ is he being a nuisance? and be fined $125 under the clause ‘all other offences not specified’?

In 12 Part 3 Clause 3.9 in subclause (2) the Latin term ‘Mutatis Mutandis’ has been substituted for ‘as though it were a substitute for a permit’ because no-one at the Shire of York speaks Latin. 

It sounds very much like a deadly disease but Mutatis Mutandis sort of means something that is very much the same but with some differences. So ‘as though it were a substitute for a permit’ could mean it might be a substitute for a permit, but actually is not and is to be determined by the Shire of York at your expense.

The Shire of York is more than happy to call expenses ‘Costs’ which includes its administrative costs but does not explain what they actually are.

Just so you know the Xmas Grinch has arrived- you are not allowed to ‘ conduct or take part in any gambling game, contest or bet’ presumably on local government property so forget Bingo at the Town Hall and the staff Melbourne Cup Sweep in the Shire of York Offices.

Despite Same Sex Marraige becoming law. The Shire of York does not appear to have moved with the times.

Transgender people beware-the highly competent designated authority from the Shire of York may fine you $125 if this reasonable person believes you have acted unreasonably by ‘ entering a toilet block or change room facility of the opposite gender’ because you identify with a gender and he or she does not agree with your choice.

To cap it all off the Shire of York intends to fine you $125 for being under the influence of alcohol or a prohibited drug.

When , where, how and who is going to arrest you, breathalyse or drug test you to establish you are drunk or drugged to the eyeballs is unknown.

In the case of a drug offence- this could well be a criminal offense with penalties far greater than $125.

The most offensive offense listed is , Behaviour detrimental to property’. You can assume this means local government property and can be anything from graffiti to urinating on the grass in Peace Park. The fine is $350.

The reason for the re-jigging of an old act is obtuse. If it is anything to do with inappropriate behaviour on government rather than public property then there is an easy fix.

It is called an Indecent Act with intent to offend. The word public does not crack a mention.

Someone ‘screwed-up bigtime’!

COMMUTER COMPUTER GAMES

As the new Development Services Coordinator climbs behind the wheel of their fully serviced, mid-range shire vehicle they will have the absolute latest advance in in-car infotainment- the use of their own personal commuter. 

It is a must have- to go with the Bose speakers, leather trim and hands- free mobile phone.

Hang on! Let us rewind here. Commuter means someone who travels to and from a destination, usually from home to their place of work and back, by plane, train and automobile which can include bus, taxi and Uber.

The Development Services Coordinator will already be a commuter as soon as he or she starts to drive so they already have commuter use- so the vehicle comes with commuter use anyway.

Now you would think that senior Shire of York management, who are paid a fortune to get things right when they write anything would actually know the difference between a commuter and a computer.

You would also think if a mistake has been made in an official advertisement, featuring the shire insignia, for and on behalf of the Shire of York ratepayers, they would have enough pride in themselves to rectify that mistake?

No- not yet.

Maybe it would cost too much to change a word, maybe they just do not care when they make even small mistakes on your behalf or maybe they are going to use the vehicle as a Taxi after office hours

& HACKING.

However- the Shire of York may have a far larger problem on their hands than typographical errors.

It appears that a Confidential- Review Remittance document, flagged as being For Your Eyes only, has been transmitted to an unknown number of recipients, delivered from the Shire of York’s computer system, complete with a memorandum apparently sourced from Carly Rundle -Senior Planning Officer from planning@york.wa.gov.au

The text says ‘Carly Rundle has sent you a Remittance to review and sign’.

Remittance means sending money in payment or as a gift.

If you are game enough to try and open the Docsigned PDF to collect or send your remittance- it is 114.44 Kilobytes, which is reasonably large when you consider that the average email is just 10 Kilobytes.

Given that this remittance could be regarding an unknown number of private business planning proposals there is the potential for a shitstorm of private and confidential, commercially sensitive information to be bobbing around in the ether.

The Review Document tells the viewer “not to share this email, link or access code with others” yet the Shire of York may well have no-idea to whom and how many times it has been sent.

It gets worse- with a promotional blurb saying that the Digital Transaction Management platform apparently used by the shire is safe, secure and legally binding- and used across the globe’.

It would be hard to argue that it is safe and secure and legally binding is a real worry.

So you have a commuter that is actually a computer and a private & confidential local government computer system holding the important records of numerous ratepayers which appears to have been hacked. And, unfortunately, the number of recipients certainly does not appear to be confined to the Shire of York Planning Department’s email list.

In a recent article in the Sunday Times the Shire of York was described as an ‘often troubled organization’.  Maybe they got that right.

David Taylor.

ALDI versus YORK

As the York & District Co-Operative Ltd, whose Board is chaired by the brother of Shire President, David Wallace, registers a disturbing loss of earnings and asks for local support, the Shire of York appears to be flush with cash under the Wallace & Martin regime and is hiring like it has just won Lotto.

The latest acquisition will be a Development Services Coordinator with a salary of between $85,000 and $95,000 which actually equates, in salary packaging terms, to between $120,000 and $130,000.

It is assumed he or she will be answerable to the Executive Manager Infrastructure and Development Services, Darren Wallace (just a coincidence) whose package would be around $160,000 -give or take some loose change.

So around $300,000 is earmarked for development services in employee costs only- prior to any new development services being developed.

The shire vehicle supplied to the lucky candidate comes with Commuter Use- whatever that means- but it sounds good. But then maybe the shire employee, or contractor, tasked with creating the advertisement actually meant Computer Use and forget to check the text.

This does not sound like the Shire of York Administration even if it could not spell its own address, Joaquina Street, about six years ago during the Hooper years .

Also there may be some local concern with the potential ambiguity of the meaning of ‘Public’ in the legal sense?

So the Shire of York, as an alleged mechanism for its own protection, is creating the Local Government Property Amendment Local Law 2018; to restrain activities that could be reasonably argued to be inappropriate on or in local government property- in this case the Shire of York Offices.

This is highly commendable.

David Taylor.

LETTER TO DAVID TEMPLEMAN-MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Oct 8, 2018

Hon. David Templeman
Minister for Local Government

Cc David Wallace
President
Shire of York
Bcc Paul Martin
Chief Executive Officer
Shire of York

Your Ref:- SUNDAY TIMES- PAGE 26 "FLASHING CHARGES FOR SHIRE  OFFICIAL" Exclusive Tony Barrass (below)

I draw your attention to the aforementioned article published in the Sunday Times of Sunday October 7, 2018, placing on the public record incidents which occurred nearly twelve (12) months ago at the Shire of York Offices.

Former Shire of York  Executive Manager Infrastructure and Development Services, Paul Matthew Crewe, now faces seven (7) counts of Indecent Exposure apparently occurring between August 30 and October 11, 2017 against three (3) female employees, also one (1) count of Common Assault. (October 11, 2017, was just ten (10) days prior to the WA Local Government Elections.)

The act of wilful and indecent exposure in public is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code Sect: 203 with penalties of up to nine (9) months in prison and/ or a $9,000 fine as a Summary Conviction or two (2) years as a Criminal Conviction.

These alleged offences apparently occurred on seven occasions over a period of not less than five (5) weeks.

It could be reasonably argued that there are disturbing similarities between the current world-wide #MeToo campaign regarding the length of time that offences against women occur without any official, expedient and necessary intervention by any appropriate authority  on behalf of the victims- and the suggested possibility that the victims, or fellow employees representing them, had to personally advise Police of the offences.

Such an extended time-frame has the potential to add to any emotional trauma suffered by the victims.

In the context of the content of the published article it is suggested that matters pertaining to the alleged offences were placed in the hands of the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA).

It is on public record that, in 2016, WALGA originally recommended to the Shire of York, Paul Crewe, as the ideal candidate for the position of Executive Manager Infrastructure and Development Services. Apparently after the alleged offenses were known to have occurred, Mr. Crewe was allowed to resign with all entitlements instead of being suspended, pending an investigation or summarily dismissed.

The article also suggests that the Police subpoenaed, from WALGA, documents relevant to the case, arguably to now assist in prosecuting this case.

As Minister for Local Government you were advised, in writing, of the case and the potential problems arising from it in October/November 2017.

The written response on your behalf, authored by one of your senior staff, suggested that you were fully conversant with the issue and you fully supported the actions taken by the Chief Executive Officer of the Shire of York, Paul Martin at that time.

You will note, in the article, that at the time of publication the Shire of York President, David Wallace, had refused to comment and the Chief Executive Officer was unavailable to make any comment.

Yours sincerely
David Taylor
Shire of York Ratepayer. 

A ‘BETTER’ ACT FOR A NEW TIME.

Minister David Templeman wants “A new Act for a New Time” claiming it will be the biggest reform of the WA Local Government Act.1995, in 20 years. Try 23 years and still counting as we head towards the end of 2018 with no final, clearly defined policy in sight. Yes we do need a new ACT but it needs to be a BETTER one- and soon!- Not another year away.

The Minister’s so-called ‘big reform; includes the right for community interest parties, otherwise known as stakeholders and/ or ratepayers, to have their input.  This is extremely kind and generous of him seeing we all pay his wages and perks, those of his staff , those of shire and city councillors and all local government employees.

In many cases they are certainly not paid peanuts but there can be a distribution to monkeys.

Mr. Templeman reminds us all that Local Governments, arguably the most poorly performing sector in Australia’s Three Tiers of Government System, particularly regarding financial accountability, often make controversial decisions. (And, on a per capita basis, Western Australia has far more local governments than any other state.)

As a politician he uses the term controversial rather than irresponsible, ridiculous or even vapid and vacuous.

Unfortunately those who pick up the tab for multi-million dollar indiscretions/controversies, often aggravated by contentious Local Government By-Laws, Principles and Guidelines which can defy even basic logic, are once again and always- the long suffering ratepayer.

These formidable faux pas are often exacerbated by the distinct lack of knowledge of legal and equitable understandings of the laws and statutes governing a particular industry which has a local government officer overseeing, possibly even interfering with its creation, development structure and performance in a Local Government Area. (Too often to an individuals and industries’ detriment and the stultification of much needed progress.)

As an example, for those who are Local Government Planning Officers -you cannot undertake Land Use Planning restrictions using the Environmental Protection Act to prevent such things as perceived detrimental noise from aircraft. This is for not one (1) but two (2) clearly specified reasons being  the regulation (1) specifically excludes the assessment of aircraft noise- therefore (2) the rule does not apply.

It would be extremely helpful that all persons employed as Local Government Planning Officers and their direct superiors, including Chief Executive Officers, were aware of these edicts- so a probably disgruntled State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) does not have to waste its time, its energy and our money in suggesting to a shire council that it reconsiders making demands that it cannot enforce. The word Reconsideration in these type of cases may well mean get it right next time.

Therefore the few who, in a Local Government Area, may well feel they will be disturbed through undue sensory reception caused by  aircraft noise maybe, for the common good, retreat from making a fuss. And, obviously, those who make such perceived errors of judgement, based on presumed lack of knowledge, are now on SAT and public records.

The vast, continuously expanding chasm between politicians, government departments and reality is exemplified by recent statements made by Mr. Templeman regarding financial accountability, particularly relating to rural and remote shire councils.

He is toying with an idea to allow councils to become commercial trading corporations, arguably giving them the right to develop businesses in direct competition with their ratepayers, trading in anything from apples to fly zippers or owning and running unprofitable taverns and convention centres.

It goes even further with a suggestion that investment regulations are removed to allow your local councils to sink ratepayers money into financial instruments not guaranteed by the Commonwealth or the WA State Government, thereby granting the potential ability for those with no known financial business services acumen to invest your rate money in high risk ventures such as ‘Bitcoins’ or Elon Musk’s ‘Space X’ private passenger flight around the moon!

It gets worse, including allowing councils to secure debt against property such as the alleged dilapidated by neglect “Chalkies” and guarantee finance for commercial developers and non-residential property owners, although this means that campaign funds provided to council members by property developers will be banned.

This low risk assessment of local government councils and officers ability to dabble with your money in the stock market, trade as a commercial corporation and possibly financially assist a relative, friend and business partner through a financial guarantee is tempered by the fact that there may be much harsher penalties for a malfeasance which appears to happen regularly- the Breaching of Tendering Rules.

There is also a large body of disgruntled ratepayers throughout the state who believe their councils cannot even perform adequately in some of the basic functions and requirements- such as local road maintenance, let alone become a viable, profit making business and investor.

Others subscribe to the view that the relaxation of investment regulations is in the hope that councils make enough money in financial share and business trading that the Commonwealth and the State can reduce the amount of their commitment for the provision of loans and grant funding?

For years arguments have been raised regarding the fact that Local Government Elections are not held under a universal franchise, being restricted to ratepayers only.  Proposed changes would mean that a compulsory voting system for everyone on the electoral role would be introduced as well as the possibility of online voting.

The perception here is that with elections being the same as Federal and State, the fact that everyone above the age of 18 can vote, will reduce the potential for small-self interest groups, for example farmers in rural areas, to dominate a councils’ decision making processes.

However this could mean ‘Political Parties’ may become more and more involved in local government councils in rural, regional and remote areas than they are now. Campaign donations from property developers, the tobacco industry and liquor and gaming entities will be banned- political party funding of a council candidate is not.

So where does all this affect the Shire of York both directly and indirectly.

Certainly there may be an objection by a number of ratepayers to their money being invested by the current local government officers with the Shire.

To put everything into perspective, since 2015 when half the current councillors were elected, as well as the current Shire President, the average price of a domestic property in York has fallen by 26 per cent, there are 2 to 3 times the number of dwellings for sale, in York, compared to similar sized shires and they take approximately one-and-a-half years to sell.

This socio-economic malaise does not seem to have been halted by the employment of a new Chief-Executive-Officer in mid 2016. In 2017 the median house price fell by 3.2%.

When there is a substantial economic downturn at the state and federal level, the Commonwealth and State Governments are directly blamed for the crisis in confidence. There is therefore a substantive argument for some blame to be the laid at the feet of Councillors and the administrators they employ when a financial and/or economic crisis develops within the confines of a Local Government Area.

David Taylor.