Q: Do you support commercial racehorse training in the wild coast precinct? 

Would you support the removal of the planning amendment which currently allows this activity and, if so, will you put forward a motion to request that the Planning Minister remove this amendment?

Mayor Vicki Jellie:

I do not support racehorse training in the wild coast precinct – absolutely not.

Yes, I would support the removal of the planning amendment and have made inquiries with associated WCC staff as to how this can occur, and have received options of how this can happen.

Deputy Mayor Richard Ziegeler:

I do NOT support commercial racehorse training on any of the beaches.
I support the removal of the amendment and would so vote.

Cr Otha Akoch:This issue of racehorse training on the beaches is not popular as far as community is concerned. As a councillor, I will go with the community in supporting the removal of the amendment.

Cr Debbie Arnott:  I do not support race horse training in the wild coast and I would support an amendment.

Cr Angie Paspaliaris: I have a responsibility to acknowledge the community’s unrest and opposition that commercial horse training at Levy’s/Spooky’s provokes, which means I am hesitant to support commercial horse training in the wild coast precinct.

I am a WRC member and sponsor, a race goer; as a Councillor, my balanced view is that it is not unreasonable to expect that the Warrnambool Racing Club has the capacity to adjust and adapt its approach and operations in order to address and respect the environment, community concerns, and a changing society.

I would consider an amendment.

Cr Ben Blain: “With the information presented to us currently on this issue, I couldn’t support this proposal.

I believe there would need to be more work done with all stakeholders in relation to any proposed changes of use in this precinct. As far as I am aware there is no active interest from trainers to use this precinct at the moment. I think the current arrangements in relation to horse training in other areas meet the trainers needs.

“I don’t see removing the planning amendment as necessary, if council aren’t supportive of the the proposal it won’t happen…even if the amendment was removed, the planning minister can always reinstate it if there is support for the proposal in the future.

Cr Max Taylor: I am against the training of racehorses at Levy’s Beach and west of there, including Spooky’s.

This is a slightly edited version (for brevity) of South West Victoria MP Roma Britnell’s speech to State Parliament on 18 March 2021, following the March4Justice rally:

Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (14:44): I rise to speak on the Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021. The purpose of this bill is to protect affected persons against further significant harm, pain or suffering that may be caused as a result of the exercise of a right of interment…

This bill effectively has come about as a result of a shocking case of the murder of a woman by her husband. A headstone was placed on her grave which had ‘In loving memory’ or words to the effect that her husband was respectful, and there was nothing further from the truth. It was upsetting for her children, her family, her brothers, her sisters. Obviously it was completely inappropriate.

Not only that, but the man who murdered her, her husband, had the right to in time, when he died, lie beside her. So it makes complete and utter sense to change that for those who have been, like in this case, murdered, harmed, and in some cases it even applies to a victim of sexual assault, where a family member may be able to lie beside them. That is completely wrong, and this bill goes exactly to where that needs to be changed. This discussion actually happened before Karen’s death. In 2016 the Victorian Law Reform Commission made a recommendation. That was five years ago, so it is a real shame that it has taken the government this long to fully adopt—which is what we are doing here—those recommendations. It is simple, and it has been far too long coming.

This makes me think about what we are really doing to support women. Are we doing enough? Clearly we are not.

Not when you see the figures that my colleague the member for Lowan just raised in her speech around the people who are victims of family violence. They are on the increase. Violent crime stats just out today demonstrate the increase in family violence, not decrease, of those cases that are being reported to police. It is just not okay. Women have the right to feel safe. They have the right to feel safe wherever they are, be it at work, be it on the street or be it at home. Are we doing enough? Clearly we are not.

I was at the March 4 Justice just this week with my colleagues, and I back the fact that we as a group of community members, as females together—both sides of this house—must work together. Colleagues—be it my male colleagues, my female colleagues—we can all do so much more…

There was a real white-hot anger at that rally, and I could feel the women just so intent on making a change. You can understand the anger, particularly from women who were present who have been abused. Sexual assault is a really serious crime, and we are not seeing the results in convictions that we see in other serious crimes like murder. Why is that?

I am reminded of when I was at school in year 11 studying legal studies, and I remember learning about momentous change that was happening in the legal system where, for the first time—and I learned this I reckon in 1983—women, instead of being in the box facing their perpetrator, could actually do what was called a hand-up brief. The very fact that it was called a hand-up brief or is still called a hand-up brief—I know it is a fairly common legal term still; I am not sure if it is the right one anymore—is kind of bizarre in itself.

What it means is that women, instead of facing their perpetrator, could write their report and hand it in as a written format rather than as a verbal format in front of the perpetrator—a great and momentous change. But it made me think: have we done enough? I know we have got the Royal Commission into Family Violence results and we have had 227 recommendations, 64 of which are still to be implemented, but have we really actually looked at what we can do?

I suggest we get the legal minds of this state and perhaps this country together—the brightest and best—and look at the meaningful reform we really need to have so that we get the convictions just like we get in other serious crimes. Because it makes no sense that we are not getting the same level of convictions. It is not that the women are making it up, it is not that it is not true; it is that we need to find ways to support them.

There must be an opportunity for us to look around the Western world and see how other nations are perhaps doing it better. I am not saying we should undo the very important rules of law that we have in place, the foundation of our very democracy, but I am wondering: have we really put those minds together and formed a panel that can actually do that review?

I think it is time we made a difference, and I believe that meaningful reform is absolutely possible. I had in my office just a few weeks ago a woman who was terrified for her safety. The intervention order that she had out on her husband was coming to an end. I do not want to give any more details than that, but it struck me as strange that she was relying on that IVO. She was terrified for her life and she gave me lots of reasons and stories that made me also very concerned about her life. The very fact that she was being put into such a fearful place really sent a chill down my spine. I wrote to the minister that day with a sense of urgency, via email, which obviously is instant. I am actually still waiting to hear back, and I think it was three weeks ago. So we must be able to do better.

I know we have got to support our women, and sexual abuse, murder and being treated like this woman was—with absolute fear—is no way for any human being to live.

I think the bill does do one thing that will help change what has happened to Karen, and I pay my respects to the family for the pain and suffering that they have gone through, which no family should have to go through. But it is time, well and truly past time in fact, to make these changes. I hope that we do more than make these changes in this legislation, but we look at the figures today of 1800-plus people being treated by ambulance call-outs in the 2019–20 year that are victims of family violence where 30 per cent of children are actually witnessing these events.

We need to support women so they can call these situations out early, know that they will get help and not be like another woman who came to my office having left a marriage situation where there was a lot of emotional violence and withdrawing of ability to see friends and withdrawing of finances. Four years later she said to me, ‘I’m couch surfing and I really did think, given all the support they talk about for women, that I would at least be supported with a home’. After 3½ years of couch surfing, for the last six months she has joined up with her friend, pooling their funds and living in motels. But she is on a national disability insurance scheme package. She cannot drive. She has to walk to services that do a great job, she said, supporting her. She cannot move out of the area because those support services are critical for her disability. But come May when we have the May races in Warrnambool, when the motels are full, she is out on the street.

And that is just last week’s story.

How many stories do we get in our offices where we are just not doing enough? She left her husband in that abusive situation—it was not physical abuse, it was emotional abuse but fairly significant—believing that she would be supported, because that is what we say to women these days. But it is not; it is just not happening enough and that was why the rally occurred.

We can do more, and my suggestion is we get the best legal minds in our nation together, particularly in the state of Victoria, and lead the way of finding better ways to support women. That hand-up brief, the example that I spoke about, was 35 years ago at least. So I think it is time for change, and there are ways to do that.

[Note, this is an uncorrected proof from Hansard, so may have minor changes in the final published version.]

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Long-standing Lyndoch Living board member Percy Eccles has resigned.

Mr Eccles, who has been a Lyndoch board member for nearly 10 years, said in a brief comment today that he resigned because he didn’t “feel I could have any more input, other than what I have already done”.

He declined to comment further.

Mr Eccles’ resignation comes as Lyndoch prepares to launch into building a $20-million-plus medical clinic on the former Tomlinson site that will house up to 20 GPs, a dentist, radiologist and education centre.

The ambitious project will be entirely funded by Lyndoch, including via bank loans and borrowing from Residential Aged Care bonds (as is currently allowed under federal aged care laws).

Mr Eccles’ resignation also comes as Lyndoch prepares to announce its new Chief Financial Officer, which will be its third CFO in five years, following the departures of David Knight and, later, Katie Wright who did not return from maternity leave.

Acting CFO Allan Conway – who filled in for Ms Wright – did not apply for the position and has also recently left Lyndoch.

Since Lyndoch first announced its $100 million masterplan in 2016, there has been growing concern over its ability to fund its rollout and the risks involved, particularly around the medical clinic which is due to open in 12 months.

A smaller, interim medical clinic is already under construction at Lyndoch, on the ground floor of the new Swinton Wing.

From what I am being told, there is a growing belief inside and outside of Lyndoch that the smaller medical clinic would be a far less risky investment and the larger medical clinic should be put on hold, if built at all.

In the meantime, we will have to wait and see if the board vacancy is advertised, or if a replacement for Mr Eccles will be appointed behind the scenes, as happened with the appointment of Prof Rob Wallis to replace former racing club CEO Peter Downs.

JUST IN: Warrnambool City Council sacked CEO Peter Schneider has successfully stopped the WCC from hiring a replacement until a judgment is handed down in his Supreme Court challenge.

The Supreme Court hopes to hand down its decision by 1 June 2021, with the hearing scheduled for March 23 and 24.

Mr Schneider had applied for an injunction in the Supreme Court to stop the council going ahead with hiring a new CEO.

The injunction hearing was held in the Melbourne Supreme Court this morning before the Honourable Justice Michael McDonald.

The injunction application was dismissed, however, when the WCC agreed to suspend the hiring process.

It was revealed during the hearing that the WCC was due to meet next Monday, March 15, to make a decision on the new CEO.

Justice McDonald today expressed his concern several times about the recruitment process underway, saying it didn’t “sit very well with the administration of justice”, given Mr Schneider’s case is yet to be heard.

Justice McDonald also raised concerns several times about whether applicants for the CEO job had been told about Mr Schneider’s court action.

Justice McDonald said he doubted any applicant who was “fully appraised” of the situation would be likely to “relocate their family from interstate, resigning from their job or whatever, if Peter Schneider could walk back in the door and take up his position”.

“I can’t understand why anyone properly advised would do so,” he said.

Today’s hearing gave some fascinating insights into what we can expect from the full hearing.

One was that Mr Schneider, if successful, is seeking to be reinstated immediately or, as it was put today, “walk back into the door to take up his position”.

Based on what was said in the hearing today, this is entirely possible.

Justice McDonald indicated that the nub of the argument was whether the council was legally able to sack Mr Schneider for “no reason or any reason”, or whether this part of his contract is over-ridden by the Local Govt Act which says all employees must be treated fairly.

The March 23-24 hearing will also examine whether Mr Schneider, as a CEO, had protections under the council’s Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA).

From the arguments put forward by lawyers for both sides this morning, Mr Schneider’s court action is shaping up as a test case on just how far a “no reason or any reason” clause can stretch.

It has also exposed the decision by four of the seven former city councillors to dump Mr Schneider is not as cut and dried as they hoped it would be.

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Oh a picture paints a thousand words.

Those of us who live or work near Lyndoch Living have this past week watched – and heard – Tomlinson Wing being razed right down to the last lounge chair left lying on its back in the rubble to make way for a multi-million dollar medical clinic.

Such is the secrecy around our community owned nursing home these days, we don’t know how much this clinic will cost – the last figure I saw published by an engineering firm was $24 million, but the plans have changed several times since then.

This clinic will house up to 20 GPs from the Warrnambool Medical Clinic, which Lyndoch now owns, and – presumably – by hiring GPs from elsewhere. It will also have a dentist, an x-ray and an acute care service.

To date, there has been no public discussion on how the business plan stacks up for such a huge investment, or the risks involved for Lyndoch, or the benefits it will bring to Lyndoch residents.

We are being asked to take it all on trust.

And trust is, frankly, in short supply around Lyndoch right now. That is what happens when you stop talking to the public and instead rely on spin.

Spin is how you turn a deficit into a surplus.

It’s how you get away with sponsoring a horse race and a corporate marquee at the May Races.

And it’s how you gouge up to 44% of a person’s home care package in admin fees.

So far, this gouging has helped Lyndoch build up a nice little nest egg of $3 million in cash.

No wonder Lyndoch is desperate to pump up its home care package clients: they are taxpayer-funded cash cows.

But is it sustainable? Is this really how home care packages are intended to work?

And, worse, is it a house of cards just waiting to crash, especially as the federal govt moves to close these loopholes?

Which brings me to this:

Last financial year, Lyndoch received almost $2 million more in taxpayer funds to pay for home care packages to help people stay in their own homes.

Did it spend almost $2 million more on supplying services?

No, it didn’t.

It spent almost exactly the same amount as the year before.

So where did this extra $2 million in taxpayer funds go?

Good question!

This was among the questions I asked Lyndoch yesterday in the ever-optimistic hope of a reply.

In the absence of any reply, I have perused Lyndoch’s figures and it appears this $2 million has been invested, which helps Lyndoch’s bottom line look better than it is.

The “surplus” for home care packages shot up from $234,398 in 2019 to $2.5 million in 2020.

A ten-fold increase in just 12 months.

The problem is, it’s smoke and mirrors.

This surplus is not Lyndoch’s money: it’s taxpayers’ money, given to Lyndoch, to provide home care packages.

It’s not supposed to be sitting around in a bank, earning interest and plumping up bottom lines.

It’s supposed to be helping people to bathe, or have their gardening done, or buy a new bed, or to supply hot meals, and if it is not being used for those purposes, then something is terribly wrong.

Fortunately the fed govt knows the system is buggered and is making long-overdue changes that it is rolling out as we speak.

A major change is that the home care money will no longer be paid in advance to places like Lyndoch.

It will be in arrears.

And by September, if new laws go through, the funds will only be paid for what has actually been spent, not sitting there waiting to be spent.

In other words, there will be no $2 million swashing around in Lyndoch’s bank account.

Given the demolition of Tomlinson, Lyndoch has a chance to reassure us that none of the changes planned by the fed govt (home care is just one of them) will make a jot of difference to its financial stability and it can plough on with its $100 million masterplan like there is no tomorrow.

If it doesn’t, or it can’t, then we should listen, very carefully, for the sound of the Queen of Hearts falling.

[Note: Lyndoch is about to hire a new Chief Financial Officer: its third CFO in five years.]

Sign up for new post alerts to your inbox. 

Tip Jar