Latest News

Lone wolf thrown under bus

Geoff Helisma |

At the November 2018 Clarence Valley Council meeting, Cr Greg Clancy described himself as a “lone wolf” when he argued against the location of proposed aircraft hangars in the draft Clarence Valley Regional Airport Master Plan.

The proposed site for the hangars covers 1,800 square metres of “bushland that has high significance”, Cr Clancy argued at the time.

At last week’s March 26 CVC meeting, during debate on adopting the plan (following its public exhibition), the mayor, Jim Simmons, incorrectly blocked Cr Clancy’s right of reply.

Cr Clancy’s motion asked to “defer” adopting the master plan until completion of “professional reports on the Aboriginal and ecological … significance” of the area proposed for the hangars.

During questions prior to debate, councillors Richie Williamson and Andrew Baker signalled a reprise of the antagonist roles they played at the November 2018 meeting, each subsequently called points of order (POO) against Cr Clancy.

Cr Clancy asked if staff had searched the Office of Environment and Heritage’s BioNet Atlas – a data collection record that lists flora and fauna – “to see what might be found in the area”, and if the Aboriginal community had been consulted about cultural sites that might be located there?

Cr Williamson called a POO. “Questions must be of a general nature,” he said.

Cr Clancy to the mayor: “How can we get answers?”

Cr Baker called a POO. “The only opportunity to reject [the mayor’s] ruling is to move dissent and nothing else,” he said.

The mayor ruled Cr Clancy’s questions out of order.

Several ‘arguments’ against Cr Clancy’s motion were revealed during questions, for example, Cr Baker asked Cr Clancy if it would be “more appropriate” to do the studies when a development application (DA) is lodged.

Cr Lysaught asked Cr Clancy: “How much for the reports?”

General manager Ashley Lindsay then asked Cr Clancy how the suggested reports would be funded.

Cr Clancy: “Is it appropriate for the GM to ask that now?”

The mayor said he “wanted to know, too”.

Cr Williamson to Cr Clancy: “[From] where are you proposing to fund the works and what are your perceived costs for the works?”

After 25 minutes of questions from various councillors to Cr Clancy, the mayor, general manager and Environment, Planning & Community director Des Schroder, Cr Clancy spoke to his motion.

He argued that “waiting for a DA is just not the best way to plan” and said that there are “legislated requirements” regarding the ecosystem and Aboriginal heritage, and that these issues would be better considered in the master plan.

However, Cr Clancy spent most of his allotted five minutes (the maximum time for each councillor’s debate) reciting a list of 69 threatened species, during which he noticed that Cr Williamson was talking to Cr Baker.

“Aren’t you listening?” Cr Clancy said. “You might learn something.”

Cr Lysaught spoke against the motion. He said he “understood” that Cr Clancy had “very strong” views on the matter, but that it would be fiscally irresponsible to do the studies as part of the master plan.

Cr Novak said not doing the studies “now is fraught with danger”.

Cr Baker, who, during debate on a previous item, said he didn’t “usually read the environmental issues”, said he was “again reminded of the importance” of environmental issues by the “rampant ecologist here”.

Referring to the 10 kilometre radius cited in the BioNet Atlas, he said: “When you have a look at the way scientists allow themselves latitude, [the radius] could be anywhere from on the beach at Wooli to the riverbank at Ulmarra.”

He said any significant Aboriginal sites would be “discovered before any bulldozer … or anything else” disturbed the site.

“We are only talking about a master plan that will allow a possibility; and that is all it will do,” he said.

Cr Karen Toms said the airport “belongs to our rate payers and they pay dearly to keep it open”.

She said she could “see” that the motion “probably” would not be supported, but “there were too many things” she was “not comfortable with yet”.

“We should know what is there before we guide on what can be put there,” she said.

At this point, Cr Williamson used his right, as per the Code of Meeting Practice, to end debate and force a vote on Cr Clancy’s motion.

Councillors can call a motion to end debate provided “at least two (2) councillors have spoken in favour of the motion or amendment and at least two (2) councillors have spoken against it,” the code states.

Cr Peter Ellem said: “What, we just gag debate?”

The code stipulates that the “chairperson [the mayor] must immediately put [the gag motion] to the vote, without debate” and that “a seconder is not required”.

The gag motion was carried by councillors Williamson, Baker, Lysaught Kingsley and Simmons.

Cr Clancy objected to not being given his “right of reply”.

“This is absolutely disgraceful,” he said.

Cr Toms asked the mayor if not receiving a right of reply was the correct interpretation of the meeting code.

Mayor Simmons called a 10-minute adjournment to “take advice” from senior staff.

Cr Clancy left the room and said he is “going to the OLG [Office of Local Government]” to lodge a complaint.

Upon reconvening the meeting, the mayor said that Cr Clancy had left the meeting and that he had “received advice that [Cr Clancy] should have been afforded the opportunity to reply to [his] motion”.

“I apologise to Cr Clancy for that incorrect ruling,” he said.

Cr Toms asked to have the answer to her question about Cr Clancy’s right of reply formally recorded in the meeting’s minutes.

In Cr Clancy’s absence, his motion was lost: Crs Ellem, Toms and Novak voted for it; Crs Williamson, Baker, Lysaught, Kingsley and Simmons were opposed.