Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.Chair: Mr. Terry Andrews
Secretary: Mr. Keith Climpson
Date: 18 July 2025
To: The Mayor, Dr. Moira Jenkins, Victoria McKirdy CEO, and all Councillors.
Via email
RE: Response to Denial of Deputation Request – Seaweed Removal and Public Health Risk
Dear Mayor Moira Jenkins,
On behalf of Council Watch Fleurieu Inc., and in my capacity as Secretary, I write to formally contest your refusal to permit a deputation at the upcoming 28 July 2025 Council Meeting on the issue of decaying seaweed and its contribution to the longevity and severity of the harmful algal bloom (HAB) affecting Victor Harbor.
This letter addresses the decision on procedural, scientific, and public interest grounds, and raises concerns about potential bias given past instances where I have been denied the right to participate in public discourse before Council.
1. The Matter Has Not Been Properly Addressed
Your assertion that `this matter has been previously addressed’ is not supported by public records of Council meetings in 2025. While references to environmental values of seawrack have been made in internal correspondence, no formal Council motion, deputation, resolution, or commissioned report has adequately examined:
- The health risks of anaerobic decomposition of wrack during marine heatwaves.
- Scientific findings linking macroalgae decay to nutrient cycling and HAB extension.
- The comparative international best practice of seasonal or conditional wrack removal in densely visited or poorly flushed bays.
In this light, the assertion that Council’s position “remains unchanged” is not evidence of proper assessment but of institutional inertia.
2. This Is a Matter of Public Health and Coastal Safety – Not Mere Aesthetics
The ongoing bloom of karenia mikimotoi has now been classified as one of the most serious environmental events in South Australian coastal history, with many thousands of marine deaths and clear community concern (SA Government, July 2025).
Key environmental science, including:
- McGlathery et al. (2001): On nutrient pulses from decaying macroalgae;
- Rossi et al. (2009): On altered nearshore chemistry from wrack decay;
- Queensland DES (2020): On the need to manage wrack to prevent HAB risks;
…clearly point to the interactive role of rotting beach-cast seaweed in extending bloom conditions, especially in semi-enclosed areas like Encounter Bay.
While Council invokes “environmental protection” as the reason to avoid removal, it ignores the mounting risk to human health, marine biodiversity, beach usability, and tourism economy if blooms persist into the warmer months.
3. Council’s Position Is Reactive, Not Proactive
Your reply outlines that seaweed removal requires Coast Protection Board approval. This is correct, however, I am not aware of any evidence that Council has applied for such approval, nor undertaken any consultation or scientific briefing to inform such a decision. In contrast, other jurisdictions in Queensland and Europe have successfully managed wrack in a conditional and regulated way to protect both ecology and public health.
What seems to be Council’s failure to act — or even inquire — appears to contradict its duty under the Local Government Act 1999 (SA) Section 6(a) to “act to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community.”
4. Procedural Fairness and Repeated Exclusion
This is not the first time I have been denied a right to participate. I have previously attempted to ask questions from the gallery. You, as Presiding Member, have dismissed these questions without offering the proper reasoning as per Section 10(4) of the Meeting Procedures Code. This sustained pattern now raises a serious concern:
Have I been denied the right to public participation based on a personal grudge or perception of inconvenience rather than the merits of the public issue?
In accordance with Section 9 of the Council Member Code of Conduct, I request you reflect on whether your actions meet the principles of:
- Transparency
- Respectful engagement
- Procedural fairness
5. My Request to Council
I call on Council to consider the following resolution:
That the City of Victor Harbor write to the Department for Environment and Water requesting an urgent review of the contribution of beach-cast seaweed to ongoing harmful algal bloom activity, and seek guidance on regulatory conditions under which wrack may be safely removed from public beaches in high-impact or poorly flushed zones.
Conclusion: Who Does Council Serve?
Your correspondence closes by thanking me for my `engagement’. Yet engagement, without the opportunity to be heard or to contribute meaningfully, is not engagement — it is appeasement.
If the health of the coastline, residents, and visitors is to be genuinely protected, then Council must move beyond default environmental dogma and embrace a science-informed, community-responsive policy approach.
Furthermore, the refusal to allow this deputation also amounts to a denial of the right of elected members to receive relevant information from concerned members of the public, which they need in order to make informed decisions on behalf of the community they represent. This is contrary to the principles of natural justice and good governance, and it undermines the transparency expected of a democratic local government.
Accordingly, your reply to my deputation request and this letter will now be made public, so that the wider community may independently assess whether your decision reflects the standards of accountability, fairness, and leadership that the residents and visitors to Victor Harbor deserve.
Yours sincerely,
Mr. Keith Climpson
Secretary, Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
Council Watch Victor Harbor 