Secret squirrel
Who remembers the cartoon Secret Squirrel? The jazzy theme song had the line “he's a squirrel of many faces”.
Before his election Mayor Pennisi campaigned on a platform of open and transparent government. Once elected we see a very different face on Mayor Pennisi, with no public information sessions on Emu Swamp Dam, and consideration of matters pertaining to Emu Swamp Dam at the Council meeting of 13 April 2022 being closed to the public. Open and transparent? Give me a break! It’s all very secret squirrel.
On 13 April Council considered and then agreed to enter into a Water Rights Option Deed to sell 450ML of our town water allocation to Granite Belt Water Limited. The debate and terms of the Deed were considered in a closed session of Council.
Regulation 254J(3) of the Local Government Regulations 2012 allows Council to close a meeting to the public in very limited circumstances. So was the matter relating to the sale of this public asset legally allowed to be closed to the public under the regulations?
If the discussion related to legal advice provided to Council, then possibly yes. However this would only relate to the legal advice, and the transaction itself would still need to be discussed and debated in an open meeting.
The only other basis on which the meeting could be closed is in relation to:
negotiations relating to a commercial matter involving the local government for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government.
Certainly Emu Swamp Dam would be a commercial matter involving the local government. However it is very hard to see how an open discussion could prejudice the interests of SDRC.
A year ago the terms of the sale of land owned by Council at 365 Emu Swamp Road to Granite Belt Water Limited, and its related valuation, were made public. Why would the sale of Council’s water allocation be any different?
On the other hand, it is very easy to see how the discussion could prejudice the interests of Granite Belt Water Limited. If the sale price agreed under the Water Rights Option Deed is made public, then Granite Belt Water Limited may find that other sellers of water allocations will be looking to be paid a similar price to Council. (I’m not saying that this is why the matter was moved to a closed meeting, it’s just an example. Quite likely we will never be told the justification for the closed meeting.)
While I can see that such disclosure may not suit the interests of Granite Belt Water Limited, that of itself is not sufficient to allow Council to move into a closed session. Perhaps at the least Council could let us know how its interests would be prejudiced in this case?
In my view, the three valuations and the terms of the Water Rights Option Deed should be made public, to satisfy ratepayers that the Council is getting value for money for our town water allocation. After all, Council is required to get value for money under the Local Government Principles, which require transparent and accountable decision-making. If the terms of the deal remain secret, how would that decision be transparent and accountable? And how will ratepayers be able to ensure that the disposal of this public asset represents value for money?
Or whether a squirrel is just giving away our acorns?