Rotarians have a simple motto: “Service above self”. Rotary says “our four-way test is a simple ethical framework to help us in our lives every day. Of the things we think, say or do: 1. Is it the truth? 2. Is it fair to all concerned? 3. Will it build goodwill and better friendships? 4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned?” Rotary's tender for the Saturday Riverside Park lease and, by default, control of Moruya Country Market fails all four. There is no truth that the management needs to be changed. It is still very successful after 35 years. It is not fair to all concerned. The members association is going to be walked over against their will.Goodwill and better friendships will be squashed by Rotarians seeking to acquire the market by dubious means. It will not be beneficial to all concerned. Members will lose their rights to their democratic market. (The market is) already a wonderful, beneficial non-profit organization, still after 35 years providing significant donations to a wide range of local special needs, charities, schools, hospitals and much more. (The market) is not trying to muscle in on what Rotary is achieving. Rotary’s daily ethical four-point simple philosophy has been abandoned by the Moruya Chapter. To help is worthwhile – not by walking over others. Rotarians need to think about their action and withdraw their tender.

I opposed Eurobodalla Shire Council’s decision to apply for a Special Rate Variation, asking that it improve its budget position, not by raising revenue from rates, but improving the bottom line through a service review and resetting priorities. I encouraged councillors to think twice about linking the SRV outcome to their Fit for the Future decision. The council has established the means for social engineering demographics by using price and peoples’ capacity to pay ever-increasing rates and charges. The shire has many on low incomes. An unaffordable future will force them to relocate. This will not pass the fairness test. This test extends to the effect of decisions on staff. Most turn up every day to do a great job. Staff are not decision-makers. It is a ruse to label every criticism of the council a criticism of staff. Unrelenting criticism of groups and political parties redirects attention onto the person and not the issue. Recent media and online criticisms of the local member, ERA and others advocating reform, reduces engagement to a slanging match. In 2012 no-one in the ERA had political experience. Still, people put their time, money and reputations on the line for positive change. They did not get everything right – two defections demonstrates this. The ERA perseveres despite setbacks, and because they have a sense of purpose to achieve better outcomes. Council argues amalgamation will increase property rates. In the absence of amalgamation or other reforms, rates will continue to rise in response to the IPART agreement. The State Government’s reform is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We need to discuss how the council delivers the change it has promised. Let’s stand up, call for meetings where we can openly and respectfully shape our future.

I am compelled to respond to inaccuracies in the letter from Eurobodalla Business and Community Forum of November 20. Council hasn’t had to remove the E3 zoning from private farm lands, as it had not been applied. The E3 Environmental Management Zone is not in the existing LEP nor is it recommended in the draft strategy. Environmental overlays have not been reintroduced against the recommendations of the committee. The minutes show the committee could not reach consensus on the use of overlays. However, they still unanimously endorsed and recommended the draft for exhibition. The committee was established at a council meeting on July, 24, 2012. Acid sulphate soils overlay in the 2012 LEP was not a factor in the case related to the “Bingie couple”. This is documented in the court judgement. Should overlays be included in the final strategy, they will only apply if a DA is required. Extensive agriculture does not require a DA, nor does a wide range of farm infrastructure. The overlay is therefore not “restrictive” or a “burden”. The proposal does not prohibit development, does not trigger the need for a DA, nor does it prevent clearing without consent where allowed under the Act. The overlay does identify vegetation where there is a State legal obligation to consider development. Visit the council’s website for more information.