Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception at City Hall, 30 Gheringhap Street, Geelong on 2 August 2017, commencing at 6:30pm.
Dr K Alexander (Chair), L Gardner, P Dorling.
B Luxford (Acting Chief Executive Officer)
P Bettess (Director Manager Planning and Development)
R Grant (Acting Director Investment & Attraction)
P Godfrey (Acting Director City Services)
F Reidy (Acting Director Community Life)
J Moloney (Director Finance & Strategy)
A Miller (Acting Executive Manager People & Organisation)
R Leonard (Senior Manager Legal Services & Governance)
J Naughton (Governance Co ordinator)
The Chair declared the meeting open at 6:30pm.
Council acknowledges Wadawurrung Traditional Owners of this land and all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People who are part of the Greater Geelong community today.
K Spiller (Chief Executive Officer)
Nil.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That two additional reports, Trudy Moritz City Learning and Care Centre and Osborne House Briefing, be considered at this evening’s Special Meeting of Council.
Carried.
On behalf of Council Kathy Alexander acknowledged the resignation of Peter Bettess, Director Planning and Development. Peter’s achievements since his commencement with the City seven years ago include facilitating the former Geelong Course redevelopment; Vision2; G21 Regional Growth Plan and Implementation Plan; planning for growth areas; establishing Enterprise Geelong; advocating for the establishment of Tourism Greater Geelong and the Bellarine; establishing the Central Geelong Task Force and the Central Geelong Action Plan; and implementing new residential zones and the Central Geelong activity centre zone.
Kathy congratulated Peter on his achievements and thanked him for the assistance he provided to the Administrators during their term in office.
Dr Kathy Alexander acknowledged a number of questions which were submitted during the past two days relating to items on this evening’s agenda.
The questions submitted have all related to either the Agribusiness Strategy or the Geelong Saleyards. We have reviewed the questions submitted in relation to these two items and are able to say that the questions do not raise issues which have not previously been raised or considered by us, with one exception raised by both Fiona Conroy and Alison Williams, which I will answer.
Questions submitted in relation to items on this evening’s agenda will be referred to the appropriate Council officer and a response will be promptly provided.
It is important to highlight that both the Agribusiness Strategy and issues relating to the operation of the Geelong Saleyards have been the subject of extensive community consultation. The details of the nature and extent of the formal consultation is outlined in the reports before us tonight. There have also been many informal opportunities for questions to be asked and answered, particularly at previous Council meetings and Community Engagement Meetings.
I will now answer Fiona and Alison’s new question because I believe it is important to provide the facts and call attention to what I feel is unfair and incorrect accusations that questions the integrity of a person who volunteered his time to provide necessary advice.
Questions
Why do the Administrators accept advice on costings to repair the cattle yards which are based on information from a livestock agent who closely advised a Council officer, when this stock agent had written to the Administrators in May stating he did not support the re-opening of the cattle yards at the Geelong Saleyards?
Kathy Alexander responded our costings were undertaken by Zinc, an independent quantity surveyor. I believe your question refers to the advice we sought from our stock agent member in relation to drafting a design of the cattle yards for costing by Zinc.
We have taken advice from a number of people on the Advisory Committee in relation to the draft design to be costed, including Ian Kelly, yourself and the whole Advisory Committee, despite the fact that Ian, yourself and other members of the Advisory Committee have made your positions on your preferred use of the Saleyards known to us in writing and in person.
I will remind you of the process in relation to the draft design:
Ian Kelly advised the officers that 80 pens were needed and provided a draft design that he believed would meet the needs of the farmers.
The Ian Kelly draft design was reviewed by our Saleyards supervisor, Melinda and our stock agent member, whose perspective on the Saleyards Committee, as an agent, was required to advise that the operational needs were able to be met by the draft design. This group agreed that holding pens would also be needed and these were added to the draft design.
This next draft of the design was sent out to the Advisory Committee for review and, on the basis of the Advisory Committee’s comments, a further draft design with a smaller number of yards was agreed.
Whilst the agent provided his perspective on the draft design, in the end, the draft design to be costed by Zinc was a decision of the Sale Yards Advisory Committee. His advice was perfectly valid in relation to the operational aspects of the Geelong Saleyards.
The terms of reference of the Advisory Committee are limited to that aspect, not in relation to whether or not the Geelong Sale Yards should close because almost all members of the Advisory Committee would, by definition, have a conflict of interest on that matter, including yourself.
This stock agent was a council appointed member of the Saleyards Advisory Committee and at no point declared this conflict of interest – as required in the committee’s terms of reference?
The stock agent applied for the position and was the only stock agent to do so. It was considered important and appropriate that the saleyards advisory committee should have an agent on it ( as you, yourself, advised at the time) and so the appointment was made as was yours and all members of the SYAC. We do not believe that the agent had a conflict of interest in relation to the terms of reference of the Advisory Committee.
The terms of reference of the Advisory Committee were limited to the operations of the sale yards, not to advise whether or not the Geelong Sale Yards should close.
This stock agent operates at the Colac saleyards and has a vested interest in the Colac saleyards as referred to in the recently released “Preparing for Change” report which states, “The existing COS Saleyard Livestock Agents have a vested interest in the on-going success of the COS Saleyards”?
I am concerned that you have taken the sentence from the Preparing for Change report completely out of context. It was commissioned by Colac and Geelong and was in reference to any agent’s likely interest in the success of Colac if Geelong were to close. It is quite wrong and defamatory to portray this sentence out of context as if it were proof of dishonesty of any particular party.
Furthermore, all participants of the Advisory Committee have an interest in a range of issues related to the sale yards (eg. it could be argued that you and other local farmers, Ramon Clark, and Ray Goodman all have an interest in maintaining the status quo for your own locational convenience and that Stuart McLean has an interest, as the president/chairman of the Australian Live Stock Sale Yards Association, in maintaining the largest number of sale yards for the benefit of the Association). None of these interests are in conflict with the terms of reference of the Advisory Committee. The fact that the people who are members of the Sale Yards Advisory Committee all have “vested” interests underpinned our decision that the terms of reference of the Committee were limited to advising on the operational aspects of the Geelong Saleyards and did not relate to any decision about whether it should be closed or remain open. That decision was always the Council’s decision alone and was to be based on the independent marketing analysis, the Agribusiness strategy, the costs to repair the saleyards to an acceptable level based on the draft design agreed with the Advisory Committee, and the views of various stakeholders.
Kathy Alexander added the answer was long but felt the response was needed to set the record straight about a person who you have publicly accused and who has worked very hard to support you with no financial gain.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
