Rant 1 - Review Of Market And Temporary Events Policies

Rant 2 - Lismore Business Promotion Panel

Rant 3 - Councillor Actions And Conflicts Of Interest

Rant 4 - Police Bashing Of Aboriginal Man

Rant 1

The August Lismore City Council meeting was on tonight. One of the items on the agenda was a Notice of Motion put forward by Councillor Neil Marks. This motion read:

‘That Council review its current policies for use of areas under Council control for markets (and other temporary events), and prepare appropriate policy / guidelines addressing matters such as hours of operation, locations and limitations on any products sold and any other relevant matters for consideration.’

This motion was given the title the ‘Review of Market and Temporary Events Policies’.

Lismore City Council’s Manager of Development & Compliance, Peter Jeuken, submitted a rather lengthy staff comment in relation to this Notice of Motion. It explains a few points and addresses some issues.

Mr Jeuken explained how Council had embarked on a process with the aim of reducing red tape for temporary events by eliminating a layer of compliance including the removal of a requirement for development consent and outdoor seating in specific parts of the CBD. As a result, ‘Guidelines for Temporary Events’ were produced. He also went on to say that the policy framework to provide clear outcomes had not been drafted to date.

These initial comments raise various concerns since Council has provided various approvals under the guidelines without a clear policy framework. This has created considerable distress for many business owners who have been asking for well over a year for such issues to be addressed. It has also allowed considerable inequities to occur between competing businesses with one business falling within a manufactured definition, and paying no rates, obtaining the greatest benefits together with considerable Council support at the expense of ratepayers.

Various attempts were made at obtaining a copy of the ‘Guidelines for Temporary Events’ without success. What was obtained was a notice of determination in relation to Lismore City Council’s own development application for the commencement of outdoor dining areas and special events / markets / land use. This document was dated more than three months after an approval was already issued to a market in Magellan Street under the new policy. The notice of determination includes various generic requirements applicable to all holders of approvals under the new policy many of which have also been ignored.

Mr Jeuken then continued identifying some issues he stated had only been identified in the previous 12 months which would support a review of the policy. The period may be arguable but the question needs to be asked why it has taken twelve months for such a comment to be made and it was only made following a Notice of Motion by a Councillor who attended an open public business forum where the overwhelming majority of attendees did not support the market. Those pushing the issue were labeled negative, trouble makers or aggressive as has become standard practice by Lismore City Council.

Mr Jeuken has now listed concerns about the Magellan Street produce market deviating from their approval, a Division of Local Government practice note regarding temporary events policies, some Northern Rivers FoodLinks project polices, the operation of circuses in wet weather and the adverse impact of planned events or rallies operating outside their expected numbers as issues supporting the Notice of Motion as printed.

As a side issue, the practice note from the Division of Local Government is dated December 2011 and provides a definition of ‘event’ and lists various examples under the heading ‘What Is An Event?’. The word ‘market’ does not appear and none of the examples provided are comparable to a market. This document has been ignored for eight months.

In the interests of impartiality, a word search of the whole document reveals the word ‘market’ appearing only once and that is in a link to a NSW Food Authority document titled ‘Guidelines for food businesses at temporary events’. A ‘temporary event’ is defined in that document as:

‘… any occasion which is not permanent and where food is sold to consumers. Examples include fairs, festivals, markets and shows.’ 

Clarification should be sought from the Division of Local Government to determine whether markets fall within their definition of temporary events. Clarification should also be sought from the NSW Food Authority to determine whether their definition is for simplification of food handling requirements or a genuine belief that a market is a temporary event even though holding an approval to operate twice a week for a period of two years which is longer than many business leases. In any case, compliance with requirements as listed in any approval is still required regardless of how an event is defined.

Mr Jeuken went on to say:

‘It should be acknowledged that temporary events do have positive impacts within any local community, and provided events are properly planned in advance and conducted in accordance with clear policy and guidelines established for the use of Council land, they should be supported.’

It seems that someone at Council, after well over a year of stressful lobbying, is finally listening to what is expected. No-one wants to see the markets closed down.

Since this broadcast is pre-recorded and the transcript was submitted for approval prior to the Council meeting, I will provide Council’s decision on Facebook and again during next week’s broadcast.

This is Big Rob on 92.9 River FM.

Big Rob’s Rant is interactive while being broadcast. You can find me on Facebook by following the links to Big Rob’s Rant on the Big Rob’s website at bigrobs.com.au.

Rant 2

A second Notice of Motion of interest to me was also put forward at tonight’s Lismore City Council meeting by Councillor Gianpiero Battista. This motion read:

‘That Council dissolve the LBPP (Lismore Business Promotion Panel) and reinstate in its place the LCoC (Lismore Chamber of Commerce) as the advisory body to Council.’

This motion was given the title of ‘Lismore Business Promotion Panel’ and involves so many issues that I could rant for days. Fortunately for everyone, I will only rant about a few.

The LBPP consists of nine members. One of those is the Chair which is a non-voting position occupied by Brent McAlister, Lismore City Council’s Executive Director of Sustainable Development. Not only does he guide the discussion as the Chair, he also has complete veto power over any decision of the LBPP. It makes you wonder why there is even a panel since nothing he disagrees with is ever implemented.

There is one seat reserved for a Lismore City Councillor, one reserved for a Lismore Chamber of Commerce representative, one reserved for the Lismore Shopping Square, one reserved for a business from outside the CBD and the three remaining seats go to inner CBD business representatives. A fourth inner CBD position was created on a whim when there was a change in the Chamber of Commerce committee to retain a preferred person on the panel.  Lismore City Council selects those who sit on the panel.

Mr McAlister wrote the staff comment for this motion in which he addressed four issues. The LBPP period of office was listed as a reason to keep the LBPP until the end of the term of this Council plus three months and an assumption was made that they have fulfilled their role well. This is a subjective opinion that is not shared by many business owners who pay a lot of money to the Special Business Rate Variation Levy or SBRVL. The panel seems to be under the complete control of Mr McAlister. The SBRVL will also face scrutiny in the coming months since it does not seem as though the funds are being used as the levy was presented to the State Government for approval.

More than two years have passed since the Council last considered the City Centre Manager’s reporting arrangement. Support for the City Centre Manager is quickly dropping off and the reporting arrangement is irrelevant since this motion is about the LBPP. A vote of no confidence in the LBPP is equally reflected in the performance of the City Centre Manager.

Mr McAlister seems to be also trying to direct Councillors to the views of the Lismore Square representative. This direction is based on dollars and nothing more. They pay a lot of rates because they control a lot of retail space. They have already been given representation on a panel of eight which was diluted by Mr McAlister when he made it a panel of nine. There is no reason why they could not also have representation on the Lismore Chamber of Commerce executive and have greater input than they do now.

The Chamber of Commerce is a group that represents the largest number of businesses in the Lismore area. Mr McAlister suggested that they represent only approximately 12.7% of businesses which pay the SBRVL while the LBPP somehow represents all ratepayers. As outlined above, general panel members are hand-picked by Mr McAlister and he has full veto rights over any decision they make. Keeping the LBPP means Mr McAlister controls the hundreds of thousands of dollars of SBRVL funding to do with as he pleases. This may not change but at least the Chamber of Commerce board is selected by voting members.

Mr McAlister continued by suggesting that businesses would be required to pay Lismore Chamber of Commerce membership on top of the SBRVL to have a say and tried to impose restrictions via some sort of charter if the LBPP was disbanded. This extra cost is just not the case since SBRVL issues can be open to public votes. This is certainly more democratic than doing whatever Mr McAlister wants. Trying to control a new panel also demonstrates a fear of losing control.

The other issues were of little importance and do not require comment.

The recommendation to defer consideration and resolution of the LBPP issue until after the election is unnecessary since it is clear that businesses seek a new direction. What is currently in place is just not working well. Management of the CBD should be undertaken by someone with management experience and qualifications as opposed to someone with marketing qualifications who promotes positive spin regardless of the outcome. Decisions should be based on facts and figures and not publicity.

As mentioned earlier, since this broadcast is pre-recorded and the transcript was submitted for approval prior to the Council meeting, I will also provide Council’s decision on Facebook and again during next week’s broadcast for this Notice of Motion.

Find me on Facebook. Follow the Big Rob’s Rant links on the Big Rob’s website at bigrobs.com.au if you would like to make a comment.

You are listening to Big Rob’s Rant on 92.9 River FM.

Rant 3

The Local Government Act 1993 places specific obligations on councillors to act honestly and responsibly in carrying out their functions. Generally those obligations include the lodgement of disclosure of interest returns, the lodgement of written declarations and the disclosure of pecuniary interests at council and council committee meetings. 

Councillor actions and conflicts of interest must be considered whenever a decision is to be made. Whether it is considered an interest that must be disclosed is left to the individual Councillor. There are also various interests that do not need to be disclosed.

With regards to the two motions before Council tonight, various actions or situations have occurred or exist that may be considered conflicts of interest. Some of these include:

* Country Labor Party’s Mayor Jenny Dowell campaigning at the Lismore Produce Market. It is unlikely she will support a motion to review the markets and temporary events policies when she obtains a benefit from their operations which many consider to be in breach of their approval and various other Council rules and regulations;

* Our Sustainable Future’s Councillor Simon Clough having a fundraiser at the business premises of one of the Lismore Produce Market stall operators. It is also unlikely he will support a motion to review the markets and temporary events policies when he obtained a direct benefit from one operator; and

* Country Labor Party’s Councillor Isaac Smith being a sitting member on the Lismore Business Promotion Panel and openly criticising and opposing anyone who has disagreed with, challenged or criticised any of their decisions, including other Panel members and the head of the Lismore Chamber of Commerce. His appointment is one designed to support business and not oppose them if they do not agree with him. It is certain that he will not support a motion to disband the LBPP since he will lose his position.

I will post whether any interests were disclosed on Facebook and also during next week’s broadcast.

This is Big Rob ranting on 92.9 River FM.

I am still posting on Facebook. Follow the Big Rob’s Rant links on the Big Rob’s website at bigrobs.com.au if you want to post your views.

Rant 4

A story in the media that has really disturbed me recently was the one about the assault on an Aboriginal man in a Ballina police station. The story involves a group of police officers who assaulted this man and then falsely claimed he had attacked them.

According to the Magistrate, the police officers lied in court and then continued to do so even after being shown CCTV footage of the incident that clearly showed what really happened. The police officers even refused to accept they undertook certain actions that were shown to them on the footage.

CCTV footage was damaged but still obtained by the prosecutor. The footage was repaired and it did not support an allegation of assault. What it showed was the man being kicked around the head and kneed in the side by a few police officers while he was on the ground. He was then dragged along the ground into a cell where he was left handcuffed for over an hour. He received significant injuries.

The Magistrate considered the damage to the CCTV footage as suspicious and made it very clear that there was no assault on the police officers and that he could not imagine a clearer example of bad faith on the part of police for initiating proceedings.

The assault case against the man was thrown out months ago, a costs order was made in favour of the man and the matter was referred to the Police Integrity Commission.

The Police Integrity Commission have launched an investigation and the Magistrate has decided not to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for the police officers to face charges including perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The reason this story disturbs me so much is that it does not involve one police officer. It involves a number of police officers who have lied to cover up their own crimes. Each one of them has ignored the other committing crimes and then consciously made the choice to commit further crimes by lying in Court and possibly damaging evidence to protect their own interests. I would like to know why none of the police officers appearing on the CCTV footage came forward.

This story disturbs me further because I believe this incident is not a one off. There seems to be a culture in the NSW Police Force of aggression and violence and then covering up offences committed by police. It has been going on for years and has been before the Courts many times. I believe it is very prevalent in this area.

I have previously spoken about such things as the ‘check drill’ and the ‘trifecta’.

The check drill is a move used by police officers to push people away. They are trained to use it at the police academy. It involves an open palm push to the chest with words similar to ‘get out of my personal space’ being used in an apparent attempt to justify the assault they are committing on an individual in front of them.

The trifecta is a term used to describe a series of three charges often used by police against an individual. The most commonly used group of three offences includes offensive language, resist arrest and assault police. A ‘quinella’ consisting of two offences can also be used.

The trifecta method is often used in an attempt to justify an arrest and then to explain why an individual has received injuries at the hands of police. The Supreme Court has warned many times about the use of the trifecta since many complaints have been made as a result of its use. Another feature of a trifecta is that it always involves only police officers backing each other up as witnesses for the prosecution. There are never any independent witnesses. There is usually also a lack of any CCTV footage.

Lismore Police Station also has an unusual feature I call ‘The Corridor’ that deserves a mention here. This is an area that extends from the front foyer area through to the cells area. It is a long corridor where there is apparently no CCTV camera coverage. The front foyer area has a number of cameras and the cells have even more. It is unusual to have such an area without any coverage. With that said, this area has been known to have individuals enter without injury and come out with injury and charges including resisting arrest. Of course, there are never any independent witnesses.

I am still going on Facebook. Follow the Big Rob’s Rant links on the Big Rob’s website at bigrobs.com.au if you want to share some views.