By Carol Altmann

For a few weeks there, I really thought the impact of the independents might see a changing of the guard in the south-west at the state election on November 24, but, no, the Liberals are on track to win yet again.

How I would love to see our seat change hands – just this once – or at least become marginal, just so we know what that feels like.

But as former south-west candidate and self-confessed political junkie Roy Reekie sets out in detail in his blog, it all comes down to simple maths and the maths is firmly on the side of a victory for Roma Britnell and the Liberal Party.

There are two reasons for this:

1) As a safe Liberal seat, the Liberal Party already starts miles ahead of everyone else. At the 2015 by-election, with few people even knowing who Roma Britnell was, she was still the first choice of 40% of voters. Remember, she only needs 50.1% of votes to win.

2) Former Moyne Shire mayor Jim Doukas, who apparently doesn’t like independent candidate, Upper House MP and fellow former mayor James Purcell very much, is set to be the queen maker via his preferences.

Just a quick primer on preferences, for those who are not political junkies and find the whole thing totally confusing.

In a nutshell, who you vote for first is critical, but also who you put second, third, fourth, fifth etc is just as important because these votes can decide who actually wins.

How? Well, imagine the election as a foot race where each candidate starts with a sack of golden potatoes (aka first-preference votes) and the person holding the majority of potatoes at the end, wins.

The person with the least amount of golden potatoes drops out of the race first, but their potatoes don’t go to waste. No! They are instead distributed to the others who are still in the race.

This dropping out of candidates and distributing of their potatoes/preferences goes on until there is one winner with a big fat sack of spuds (aka a majority).

Using this analogy, Roma Britnell, as the sitting Liberal candidate in a safe seat, will start on November 24 with a hefty bag of potatoes – she had 15,486 of them as a newcomer in 2015 and only needed another 4000 or so to have a majority.

Country Party candidate Jim Doukas last time started with around 4000, which is substantial, so you can see why where he decides to direct his preferences really matters: everyone wants his potatoes!

Unfortunately for James Purcell and Labor’s Kylie Gaston and the Greens’ Thomas Campbell, Mr Doukas has decided to direct his spuds first to Michael Neoh and Roma Britnell, in that order. James Purcell is a lowly fifth on his preference list.

Just remember, Roma doesn’t need that many extra spuds to crack that magical 5o%-plus-one mark and Jim is now her greengrocer.

James Purcell must be spitting chips. This was not how it was supposed to play out when he decided to take the leap from the Upper House to run for the Lower House.

It was always going to be a tough haul for James to get close to beating Roma, but if all of the “others” banded together and agreed to share their votes via preference deals, then maybe he at least had a half chance as a “I’m-not-Liberal-but-I-am-conservative” candidate.

At least independent and former Warrnambool mayor Michael Neoh has done his bit to try and shake the south-west from its slumber and, in so doing, has performed a 360-degree twist in allegiances that would leave any head spinning.

In 2015, Michael ran for the National Party after failing to win preselection for the Liberals, and it was his preferences that helped get Roma Britnell safely over the line (ahead of the aforementioned Roy Reekie).

This time, however, Michael is running his own race and Roma has been dropped to 7th on his preference list behind the ALP’s Kylie Gaston – ouch! – you can see why they say there are no friends in politics!

So what does this all mean?

Well, I think the most we can hope for is that the influence of the independents sees the south-west shift from being safe to not-so-safe and maybe even a tiny bit marginal.

This would be a victory for all of us, even Liberal voters, because we all know that it is the marginal seats that have better roads than ours, better trains than ours, more funding for projects like hospitals and schools and libraries, and – above all – a genuine sense that our vote can never be taken for granted, and that, dare I say, is no small potatoes.

If you haven’t voted yet and want to help make this seat marginal, vote for one of the independents, the Greens or the ALP. For a much more detailed analysis of how things could play out, please read Roy’s blog here (written before the preference deals were announced). Roy crunches the numbers like nobody can.

By Carol Altmann

Local construction giant Graeme Rodger has taken a rocket to the Warrnambool City Council for a tender process that will see ratepayers pay at least $328,000 more than they could have for part of the Simpson St drainage project.

At a time of rate capping and tight spending, you would think the WCC would be aiming to save every dollar it can, which is why a story about tendering becomes so interesting.

Mr Rodger’s company, Rodger Constructions, was among those who in August bid for a multi-million dollar contract for a stage of the Simpson St stormwater drain upgrade – a 725m long tunnel that directs stormwater from East Warrnambool out to the Hopkins River.

Rodger Constructions put in two tenders: one for just under $3.213 million and another, called a non-conforming tender, which suggested a cheaper option that would have cost $3.116 million.

The council went on to award the tender to another local company, despite its price of $3.542 million being higher than both of the Rodger Constructions’ tenders, which begs the question of why spend more ratepayers’ money than you need to?

As Mr Rodger pointed out in no uncertain terms in a letter on Oct 4 to council CEO Bruce Anson and councillors, the selected tender will cost ratepayers almost 10% more – $328,530 – than the one submitted by Rodger Constructions.

And if the council had considered the alternative, ‘non-conforming’ option, it could have saved almost 12% – or $424,630 – which is no small potatoes in a tight council budget.

According to Mr Rodger, the extra cost to ratepayers is due to a flaw in the tender process and it is this, rather than losing the tender, that he wants to blow open. As a former city councillor (with Warrnambool and Colac) and a chair of South West Water (now Wannon Water) for 12 years, he knows a bit about tendering – from both sides.

I know what you are probably thinking at this point, because I thought it too: Rodger Constructions is peeved at not winning the tender and maybe its tender was just way off course, so let’s look at that.

While a $3 million-plus tender is a big project and Rodger Constructions no doubt wanted the job, it is not a make-or-break deal for a company that has several huge contracts on the go at any one time including, at the moment, the site works for the new Warrnambool Special Development School and the Hopkins Ridge housing estate.

Perhaps it is precisely because of this success that Mr Rodger can speak out publicly although, like so many others, he has been advised against it.

(If I had a dollar for every time I talked to someone who said I can’t use their name in a story because they feared a backlash, I would be basking somewhere in Barcelona).

So what about the tender submitted by Rodger Constructions?

Well, it was robust enough to made the council’s short-list.

As part of that short-listing process, the council highlighted specific parts of the tender that need tweaking and then Rodger Constructions could submit its “best and final offer”.

Rodger Constructions did just that: they tweaked the parts highlighted by the council and put in a best and final offer.

Mr Rodger said it came as something of a shock, then, when the council later rejected the tender for reasons that he says were never raised in the shortlisting.

As Rodger Constructions wrote in a letter to councillors, the main reasons given for rejecting the tender had never been issues in the past – the company has done contract work for the council for five decades – and they could have been resolved easily with a one-on-one meeting. (Such a meeting is allowed under tendering rules.)

One of the reasons for rejection, for example, was Rodger Constructions’ failure to demonstrate its financial capacity to do the project.

Others were concerns around quality assurance and meeting the project completion date.

“We are a pre-qualified company, with national accreditation, to complete contracted works for any single job up to $15 million,” Mr Rodger said.

“We have been performing similar contracted works for WCC for over 52 years. If we had been asked, then these concerns would have been alleviated. This could have been done via a simple post-tender meeting, which once again is normal practice and is in the WCC Procurement Policy.

“Not having this meeting has cost the ratepayers of Warrnambool,” he said.

In a letter to Mr Rodger on October 26, council CEO Mr Anson said it was “discretionary” for the council to ask for more information from tenderers, to have any further talks or negotiations, or to allow a tenderer to amend their bid.

“In this instance, the council elected not to exercise any of these options,” Mr Anson wrote.

“This decision was made based on the specific requirements of the tender process in question, and also in light of the council’s obligations under its Procurement Policy,” he said.

Mr Anson then outlined the need for transparency, fairness, and judging each tender on its merits, which includes council staff not relying on information they already know about a company.

Of course Mr Anson is right, such an approach is necessary and sound, but if the council could have saved more than $300,000 on the final contract price, why not also use its perfectly legal discretion to meet with a tenderer to flush out any missing facts?

Mr Rodger has since asked for a copy of the tender audit trail to nail down that – expensive – question.

If you would like to see The Terrier keep digging up, sniffing out and chewing on local issues, please make a small contribution below.

Donate

By Carol Altmann

If ever I need reminding of how the horse racing industry permeates so much of Warrnambool life, I just read the monthly invoices that arrive from Lyndoch nursing home for my mother’s care.

“Proud sponsor of the Waterfront by Lyndoch Living Grand Annual Steeplechase”, it says at the bottom of each email.

Why on earth, I thought, would a publicly funded aged care home spend even money sponsoring a jumps race?

Why not spend the $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever it was on a new bus for the residents?

And has it been worth it?

The sponsorship was designed to help Lyndoch sell its luxury riverside apartments – Waterfront – that opened in 2014 with 17 apartments priced from $420,000 to $665,000.

As was reported by the local paper in early 2017, the three-year sponsorship deal was signed just a few months after the CEO of the Warrnambool Racing Club Peter Downs joined the Lyndoch board.

Lyndoch board chair Kerry Nelson told the paper Mr Downs excluded himself from any decision making around the sponsorship, as you would hope, but whose idea was it to sponsor the steeplechase in the first place?

In a series of emails and a follow up phone call, I asked Lyndoch CEO Doreen Power a whole bunch of questions about the sponsorship arrangement and the apartments. I also asked Ludeman Real Estate about the apartments, which they list.

Despite first asking these questions way back in July, Ms Power has chosen not to respond at all and, more recently, Ludeman Real Estate agent Mark Dwyer referred me back to Lyndoch.

In my profession, you can always tell when you are treading on uncomfortable ground by the depth of silence that follows your questions. If people feel good about a project, they can’t wait to tell you all about it. (And when a real estate agent declines to talk up a property, you really must be on to something!)

I still don’t know for sure who came up with the steeplechase sponsorship idea, but I do know that about a third of the apartments remain unsold and are proving hard to sell.

The prices for some apartments also appears to have dropped.

As mentioned earlier, the starting price listed in 2014 was $420,000, but according to the Waterfront website, one sold recently for $379,000.

Another was listed for sale on the Waterfront website at $559,000, but looks very similar to that listed by Ludeman Real Estate for $490,000.

As of today, six of the 17 apartments remain unsold and, from what I have been told,  there are two main reasons for that. The first is that the apartments are not the “cream of the crop” which were snapped up quickly and often at high prices.

The remaining apartments don’t have the same river views, or face to the south, rather than the sunnier north. 

The other reason is that Lyndoch was starting to talk about building Stage 2 of the development, when Stage 1 was still not fully sold.

What this means is that potential buyers would rather hold off and try to grab a “cream of the crop” apartment in Stage 2 than invest in what remains of Stage 1.

The problem is, of course, if Lyndoch forges ahead and builds Stage 2, it could repeat the same problem all over again: the top apartments sell and the others remain stagnant.

This is just the sort of dilemma faced by property developers everywhere and Lyndoch is now, effectively, a property developer with some fairly high priced real estate sitting empty.

Part of the sales pitch by Waterfront has been to lure retirees from elsewhere to Warrnambool, which was partly the point of slapping its logo all over the May Race Carnival, when there are lots of visitors to our city.

If the sponsorship deal hasn’t delivered rock solid results, however, then it has been a waste of money and I suspect when the deal expires after the 2019 event, Lyndoch won’t be placing the same bet again.

If you would like to keep seeing more pieces like this about local issues, please make a small contribution below.

Donate

By Carol Altmann

Like him or dislike him, long-serving Warrnambool City Councillor Peter Hulin exposed a simmering issue inside council this week when he spoke out on the “bullying by exclusion” that has kept him from ever being chosen as mayor.

As Cr Hulin told Standard reporter Rachael Houlihan, he didn’t even bother to run for mayor this time around because he knew he didn’t have the numbers on council, and he was right. He also no longer sits on even one council committee, having been excluded from those too.

Cr Tony Herbert, who was selected as mayor on Monday and who chairs not one but two council committees, was in the box seat for the mayoralty all along and Cr Sue Cassidy will get her chance next year.

Because as we now know, Warrnambool no longer selects its mayors based on years served, or council experience, or even popularity among the voters.

If it cared about experience, Cr Robert Anderson would not have been chosen last year, his first year on council, over Cr Hulin who has now served 10 years.

And if it came down to the will of the people, Cr Hulin would have had a turn by now too.

In 2008, when he first joined council, Cr Hulin polled 2078 first preference votes – second only to Cr Rob Askew on 2260 and well ahead of Crs Mike Neoh (1578) and Jacinta Ermacora (1348).

Both Crs Neoh and Ermacora (who is no longer on council) have been mayor.

The second time he came up for election, in 2012, Cr Hulin scored 2250 first preference votes, almost double that of newcomer Kylie Gaston on 1210. Cr Gaston went on to be mayor too.

And at the last council election, in 2016, Cr Hulin came in fifth but was still the preferred first choice of 1519 voters, which was a higher first preference vote than Cr David Owen (1206) and not far from Cr Gaston (1800). The two candidates elected behind Cr Hulin were, wait for it, Cr Tony Herbert (1456) and Cr Robert Anderson (1058).

Despite being in their first term as councillors, Cr Anderson and Herbert have now both been mayor too.

Cr Hulin has every right to feel angry, but so do the people who voted for him – consistently – election after election, since 2008.

These voters clearly want his voice in the mix, they want him to have the same opportunities as his other council colleagues and they believe he has something to contribute.

For the other councillors, aided and abetted by powerful forces within the council itself, to continually exclude Cr Hulin from the spheres of influence because he doesn’t fit with their particular style or agenda, is to take a gouge out of democracy.

It is also basically a big “stuff you” to those who vote for him.

Being mayor of a city the size of Warrnambool is no longer about ribbon cutting and wearing a big robe with a big medallion, although I think Cr Anderson thought it was because, with all due respects to him, he was unremarkable as a mayor.

It is now a job with a $70,000-plus a year allowance that relies on a mayor being able to promote the city, lobby for the city, ask questions of the city and put the city’s best interests first.

There are many things I disagree on with Cr Hulin – his support for racehorse training at Levy’s Beach and looking at enclosing the harbour are just two of them – but there is little doubt he has a passion for Warrnambool.

He also asks tough, detailed questions, and surely that sort of inquiry – too often dismissed as being “negative” – is just what we need to keep our council accountable?

Cr Hulin could be a disappointment as mayor. He may stand up in public and make bad jokes about FIGJAM, who knows? But to be excluded from ever having the opportunity to spend even 12 months in the role sends a chilling message that unless you play a certain way, you will be frozen out, and that should be of concern to all of us.

If you would like to keep seeing more pieces like this about local issues, please make a small contribution below.

Donate

By Carol Altmann

The Warrnambool City Council’s handling of racehorse training at Levy’s Beach is turning into a trifecta of trouble that should have us all seriously concerned about how the council operates.

Let’s check the form guide as the council prepares to meet tomorrow night (26/10) to revisit a decision it made just 11 days ago to – illegally – issue permits to allow commercial racehorse training at Levy’s from December 1.

Race 1: The Law-Breaker Stakes

The WCC broke the law and has been breaking it for years.

This may sound dramatic, but it is true. The Warrnambool City Council has enabled racehorse training at Levy’s for years without ever checking if it was breaking its own planning laws.

It was.

The entire Warrnambool Planning Scheme is a serious document. It is enforceable by law and its whole purpose is to make sure that we all know the rules and we abide by them. We trust our council to make sure this happens regardless of who we are, how much money we have, or what influence we might bring to bear.

Despite this, the council did nothing when racehorse trainers started to turn up at Levy’s Beach well before trainer Darren Weir’s Melbourne Cup success in 2015 and well before anyone started to talk about a Belfast Coastal Reserve Management Plan.

These trainers, we now know, were breaking the local planning laws and the rules around what is allowed in a coastal reserve, and they continued to do so until so many of them began turning up along the beaches between Killarney and Warrnambool that it was impossible to ignore.

Council CEO Bruce Anson has tried to justify the WCC’s ignorance of its own laws by saying when Environment Minister Lily D’Ambrosio stepped in in late 2016, giving an order to say the council could issue licences to trainers, they blindly followed. (You can see Ms D’Ambrosio’s order here).

Nobody at council checked? Nobody challenged this? Nobody thought that perhaps the Environment Minister didn’t have the power to ignore the Warrnambool Planning Scheme?

(I wonder if the WCC would be so subservient if the Minister granted free car parking across the city? Hmmmm.)

A planning scheme can be altered one of two ways: by the council (a process that can take a year), or a Planning Minister declaring the matter of such importance that they change the planning scheme. Ms D’Ambrosio is not a Planning Minister.

It is not a decision to be made lightly, which bring us to the second leg.

Race 2: The Who-Gives-A-Stuff Cup

The council knew it was breaking the law, but raced on anyway.

Word has been leaking out of council this week that concerned council officers tried to raise the alarm back in February this year about the legality of racehorse training at Levy’s and nobody listened.

I absolutely trust my sources on this and I trust them even more in light of what happened at last Monday night’s council meeting.

That was when we saw, in unprecedented scenes, four of the seven councillors vote in favour of issuing training permits for Levy’s despite being warned they were breaking the law.

That warning came from the Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) to Mr Anson in late September and directly to councillors via email on Sunday night.

The council’s own legal advice arrived this week, confirming it was in breach of the law.

As Shannon Hurley, from the VNPA, said today, the VNPA’s legal advice confirmed “commercial racehorse training has never been allowed within the reserve and so should have never been allowed to explode”.

“It is (also) not a ‘balanced use’, it is the opposite, because it was never allowed in the first place.”

Crs Kylie Gaston, Tony Herbert, Sue Cassidy and Mayor Robert Anderson didn’t care about any of this, it seems, because they cracked the whip and pushed through the vote on Monday night.

Which brings me to the final leg:

Race 3: The Nothing-to-Declare Handicap

The conflict-of-interest rules in Local Government are pathetic and because they are pathetic, our councillors need to be stronger.

We saw just how pathetic the conflict of interest rules were on Monday, when Cr Gaston was able to sit at the council table, move the motion on the Levy’s permits and vote on those permits, all while being an endorsed Labor candidate.

The racehorse training at Levy’s is being pushed by the State Labor Government and Cr Gaston wants to be a Labor MP, yet there is no conflict of interest under the Local Government Act.

The week after Monday’s vote, Cr Gaston was campaigning in Portland with Minister Lily D’Ambrosio (mentioned above), yet there is no conflict of interest under the Local Government Act.

Cr Sue Cassidy’s partner runs sign company Cassign, which is a sponsor of the Warrnambool Racing Club and has sponsored several races, yet there is no conflict of interest under the Local Government Act.

The council hosts a hospitality marquee (which we pay for) each year at the May Race Carnival and yet there is no conflict of interest under the Local Government Act.

It stinks, yet not one councillor at Monday night’s meeting raised any of these concerns.

Nobody leapt to their feet and challenged Cr Gaston on how she managed to wear two hats within 24 hours, or how it looks when Cr Cassidy’s family business is a supporter of racing, or how the council can hope to make an impartial decision on racehorse training when it hangs out at the May races.

As we know, there is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, and right now the council is running dead last on both.

If you would like to keep seeing more pieces like this about local issues, please make a small contribution below.

Donate