Accountability with Integrity

Crozier Hill / Stock Road Floodplain – Governance Concerns, Public Safety, and the Need for Independent Oversight.

1. Public Safety is Paramount

Flood risks associated with Crozier Hill / Stock Road are real, documented, and publicly acknowledged by Council. Residents were at one point contacted due to “risk of isolation during storm and flood events”, confirming Council’s operational knowledge of exposure. Where development intersects with human safety, transparency and preparedness are non-negotiable responsibilities.

Council Watch asserts:
• Residents must be informed of all relevant risk information.
• Appropriate emergency planning must exist and be demonstrated.
• Public safety must take precedence over reputational management or risk containment.

2. Prolonged Secrecy Now Presents a Governance Risk

Council has held key components of the Crozier Hill / indemnity matter in extended confidential status for close to four years. While confidentiality may initially be justified, its prolonged continuation now creates governance risks. It undermines public confidence, increases exposure for decision-makers, and risks appearing to protect institutions rather than the community.

Council Watch believes time is no longer neutral. Prolonged secrecy now harms governance rather than protects it.

3. Independence Is Essential

It is a matter of public record that elements of Council’s handling of related matters were shifted under the control of Council’s Insurer. Insurers exist to manage liability, not to undertake independent governance or integrity investigations. While insurers play a valid role, they cannot replace external public-interest oversight.

Ratepayers deserve certainty that any investigation into this matter is impartial, external, and free from liability-driven influence.

4. The Community Deserves Clarity

Council Watch does not assert findings of guilt, wrongdoing, or criminal liability against any individual. That is the responsibility of appropriate statutory authorities. However, risk remains unresolved, governance questions remain unanswered, and the community has waited long enough.

A functioning democracy requires that serious matters of risk and governance ultimately be tested openly.

5. Position and Call to Action

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. believes it is now firmly in the public interest that:

(a)  A genuinely independent investigation be commissioned, external to Council and independent of insurers, with full access to all documentation.
(b) Confidentiality surrounding Crozier Hill indemnity matters be urgently reviewed, with maximum practicable disclosure made.
(c) Council formally account to the community regarding what has occurred, what risks remain, and what protections now exist.
(d) Oversight authorities be formally engaged where appropriate to ensure governance accountability and public confidence.
(e) Affected residents, including Mr Blatchford, be treated respectfully and in accordance with natural justice, irrespective of all past disputes.

(f) Residents, such as Mr Blatchford, are allowed to ask the Council Questions from the Gallery, and also to make Deputations.

Conclusion

This issue is no longer simply a dispute; it is a matter of public governance, public trust, and public safety.

Transparency strengthens institutions — silence corrodes them.

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. will continue to advocate respectfully, lawfully, and firmly for truth, accountability, and community protection. We wish you all a very happy new year, and can assure you that we will continue to represent your best interests for this coming year. Please help us to do this by telling your friends about us, and letting us have their contact details so that they can go on our mailing list.


Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
Terry Andrews – Chair
Authorised by Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
PO Box 1753
Victor Harbor SA 5211
Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com
Web: https://councilwatchvictorharbor.com

Accountability with Integrity

Victor Harbor

The Price of Paradise.

Now Among South Australia’s Least Affordable Regional Towns

Feature Story

Affordability strikes at the very heart of where people can afford to live, and the data now tell a confronting story for Victor Harbor.

Recent property statistics from CoreLogic and the SA Valuer-General show the median house price in Victor Harbor has reached approximately $725 000, compared with a regional South Australian average of $503 000.
That means Victor Harbor is roughly 45 per cent more expensive than the typical regional town in the state.

In plain terms, Victor Harbor has joined the ranks of the least affordable places to live within South Australia’s regional towns.
Port Pirie (~$353 000), Whyalla (~$400 000), Mount Gambier (~$505 000), Murray Bridge (~$523 000)

All remain within reach for working families and first-home buyers, while Victor Harbor’s rapid price growth now rivals many capital-city fringe suburbs.

This shift from “affordable coastal retirement haven” to high-cost lifestyle market brings both opportunity and strain.
Rising property values benefit existing owners, yet they lock out younger residents, hospitality and care workers, and even long-term locals seeking to downsize.
Essential services — retail, health, and tourism, depend on these workers, yet housing costs are pushing many to commute from neighbouring districts.

Council Watch argues that affordability must become a key measure of good governance.
Local planning, rate policy, and infrastructure priorities should recognise that sustainable communities depend on diverse and attainable housing.
A town cannot thrive if the people who serve it can no longer afford to live in it. As house prices are a component of how rates are determined this again is affecting residents abilities to survive here.

At a Glance

IndicatorVictor HarborRegional SA AverageDifference
Median house price (2025)$725 000$503 000+ 44 % higher
Median rent (approx.)$470 per week$370 per week+ 27 % higher
Population growth (5 yrs)+ 8.2 %+ 4.1 %↑ High demand
Local median income (approx.)$67 000$76 000 (State)↓ Lower incomes

Sources: CoreLogic Property Market Update Q2 2025; NAB Regional SA Property Market Insights 2025; SA Valuer-General Quarterly Data Sep 2025; Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Regional Profiles 2024.

Council Watch Comment

“When a coastal town’s property market outpaces its incomes by this margin, it stops being affordable for its own community.
Local government must treat housing affordability as a policy issue, not just a market trend.”
— Terry Andrews, Chair Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.

Evidence from Council Records

Affordability concerns are not merely an external observation — they have also been raised within council’s own governance structures.

During the Audit Committee meeting of 1 January 2025, Group Manager Governance and Finance highlighted that the debtor report was tabled “as an indication of whether people are having more financial hardship.”

This confirms that financial hardship and community affordability pressures were recognised internally as an emerging governance and risk-management issue. Tracking unpaid rates and debtor trends provides a direct measure of how rising living costs and rate increases are affecting local households — an important signal that affordability is not just a market statistic, but a real-time pressure within council finances.
(Council Watch source: Audit & Risk Committee Transcript, City of Victor Harbor, 1 January 2025.)

In the Audit & Risk Committee Minutes (3 November 2025) several passages confirm that the City of Victor Harbor’s outstanding rate debts (arrears) have increased and that the Committee reviewed this trend formally under Item 6.7 – 2024/25 Outstanding Debtors Report.

In the related Audit Committee transcript, Group Manager Governance and Finance noted that the “variance percentage [of rates receivable] has been provided … as an indication of whether people are having more financial hardship”. That confirms the committee was tracking an upward movement in rate arrears.

The Audit Completion Report (UHY Haines Norton, 2025) reinforces this context: it shows continued deterioration in financial sustainability, with an average Asset Renewal Funding Ratio of 61 % (below the 88 % target) and tight liquidity, both consistent with more households falling behind on rates.

Because the actual arrears figure (in $ or %) isn’t printed in these public documents, the safest and accurate way to present it in your report would be:

“According to Council’s 2024-25 Financial Statements and the Audit & Risk Committee discussion on 3 November 2025, the level of outstanding rate debts increased compared with the previous year. Administration confirmed this rise was being used as an indicator of community financial hardship.”

Council Audit Snapshot – 2024/25

(Source: City of Victor Harbor 2024–25 Financial Statements & Audit Completion Report)

Indicator2024–25 ResultContext / Comment
Operating Result–$822,000 (deficit)Continued cost pressure and reduced grants income.
Asset Renewal Funding Ratio≈59–61 %Below the target range (90–110 %), signalling deferred maintenance and long-term sustainability risk.
Outstanding Rate Debts↑ Increased from 2023–24Administration noted arrears were being monitored as a “proxy for financial hardship.”
Liquidity RatioTighteningIndicates reduced cash available for short-term obligations.
Audit Comment“Sustainability risk remains under watch.”Auditor advised ongoing monitoring and improved transparency.

Council Watch Observation

Rising arrears and reduced renewal funding point to one reality: affordability pressures are mounting.
As more residents fall behind on payments, Council’s future options narrow, either recover costs through higher rates or defer essential works, both of which compound the burden on the community.

The Takeaway

Victor Harbor’s housing challenge is now a regional warning.
Without deliberate policy attention, and release planning, mixed-tenure development, and fair-rate structures, affordability will continue to erode.
The dream of a seaside lifestyle should not come at the cost of excluding the very people who make that community function.

 All sources independently verifiable as of November 2025.

Certification

This correspondence is provided in good faith as part of Council Watch’s public-interest oversight  activities.

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc                                 

Donations welcome

Bank SA — BSB: 105-026, Account: 076-284-940

Your support helps keep local government accountable.

By Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.

PO Box 1753, Victor Harbor SA 5211,

Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com
Web: https://councilwatchvictorharbor.com

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc Newsletter Feature – November 2025

The Town That

Forgot the Law.

In a small coastal city, not unlike Victor Harbor, there stood a proud building of steel and glass, the Council Chambers. Inside, the air was thick with ceremony and self-importance. The councillors spoke of “good governance” and “community outcomes,” while the people outside spoke of broken trust.

The Local Government Act was meant to be their compass, a fine and noble document crafted to guide democracy at its most local level. Yet, over the years, interpretation became invention, and invention became excuse. “It’s not illegal,” they would say, even as decisions bent the law until it almost snapped.

When councillors surrendered their delegated powers to the Chief Executive Officer, it raised a troubling question: why have councillors at all? If every decision is filtered, framed, or finalised by the administration, then elected representatives become little more than paid rubber stamps. The community could save a fortune by simply allowing the administration to make all the decisions themselves.
And if the State Government continues to pile its responsibilities onto local councils, perhaps the question should be asked more boldly: why have local government at all? Imagine the savings, one less level of accountability to worry about.

The people who bore the weight of biased decisions found no comfort in knowing they were right, for truth without enforcement is hollow. Those without deep pockets could never challenge a council in court; they simply learned to live with injustice disguised as “process.”

The burning question echoed from the gallery:

“If a road law is broken, the police come.
If a crime is committed, justice follows.
But if the Local Government Act is ignored — who comes for us?”

There was hush and then silence. No one answered.

When complaints reached the Ombudsman or ICAC, the replies were polite but distant. Reports were “considered,” “noted,” or “found to be reasonable.” The watchdogs seemed to guard not the people, but the comfort of the system itself.

And so, democracy in that coastal town became like a lighthouse with no keeper — still shining, but untended, its beam fading slowly in the mist.

The moral is clear:
Laws without enforcement are promises without meaning.
Until there are guardians for the guardians, until a body exists with real power to police the Local Government Act, the old saying will remain bitterly true:

“The law is an ass.”

Perhaps this may be catalyst for having no Local Government at all?

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.

Accountability with Integrity.

Terry Andrews (Chair)

PO Box 1753, Victor Harbor SA 5211
Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com
Web: https://councilwatchvictorharbor.com/

This newsletter will be able to be viewed on our website.

Please remember our banking details for membership subscriptions and any donations you may wish to make Bank SA. BSB. 105 026 Acc. No. 076 284 940

This correspondence is provided in good faith as part of Council Watch’s public interest oversight activities.

Drought Relief Program Raises Transparency Concerns

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. has written to the Minister for Local Government and the Ombudsman SA requesting an investigation into the City of Victor Harbor’s refusal to release the names and amounts of recipients under the Farm Business Support Grant Program (Drought Relief).

At the Special Council Meeting of 7 April 2025, Council approved the program with a $90,000 allocation from the Community Grants budget. The minutes show no motion for confidentiality, and the resolution authorised only that the CEO approve the recommendations of the Grants Panel within the approved budget.

Despite this, CEO Victoria MacKirdy has since declared that recipient details are “not publicly available information.” Council Watch has found no Council resolution or delegation granting authority for this secrecy.

Council Watch Chair Terry Andrews said:
“Transparency in public spending is not optional. Unless Council can point to a lawful resolution under section 90 of the Act, there is no valid reason for withholding this information.”

Council Watch believes the community has a right to know how ratepayer funds are distributed and will continue to press for the release of all grant data. The matter is now before Minister Joe Szakacs MP and Ombudsman SA for review of the City of Victor Harbor’s compliance with the Local Government Act 1999 (SA).

Media Contact:
Terry Andrews
Chairperson – Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
Post: PO Box 1753, Victor Harbor SA 5211
Phone: 0451 140 543
Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com

Website: https://councilwatchvictorharbor.com

COUNCIL WATCH CALLS FOR MINISTERIAL INQUIRY.

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. has formally written to the Minister for Local Government, Hon. Joe Szakacs MP, demanding an investigation into the refusal of a local resident’s deputation on a critical public health issue by the Mayor of Victor Harbor, Dr. Moira Jenkins.

Resident Mr Keith Climpson was denied the opportunity to address Council on the possible link between beach wrack (decaying seaweed) and the ongoing Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) event affecting the region.

“The Mayor’s decision to block this deputation is not just disappointing — it reflects a systemic suppression of public voices,” said Council Watch Chair Terry Andrews. “Mr Climpson has now been refused both a deputation and the right to ask questions from the gallery. This is not how democracy works.”

Council Watch alleges:

  • The Mayor may have had a material conflict of interest and should have recused herself;
  • Council administration undermined an elected member’s motion (Cr Quaremba) by inserting an “alternative recommendation” to shut down debate;
  • All legal and reputational risks were rated ‘low’, yet public input was denied;
  • The community’s right to speak on health and environmental matters is being stifled.

Council Watch is calling on the Minister to:

  • Intervene;
  • Issue new guidance on public participation;
  • Refer the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation.

“Local government is not the private property of the Mayor or the CEO,” Mr Andrews said. “It belongs to the people — and we won’t stop until the people are heard.”

Sincerely,

Terry Andrews
Chairperson
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
PO Box 1753, Victor Harbor SA
Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com
Web:  www.councilwatchvictorharbor.com

CONFIDENTIALITY OR CONCEALMENT? COUNCIL WATCH CALLS FOR TRANSPARENCY IN VICTOR HARBOR

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. has formally written to the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Joe Szakacs MP, calling for an inquiry into the City of Victor Harbor’s growing use of confidential sessions under Sections 90 and 90A of the Local Government Act.

Chair Terry Andrews said: “The community deserves openness on decisions that commit millions of ratepayer dollars. Confidentiality should protect legitimate commercial negotiations, not be used as a shield to avoid scrutiny.”

Recent notices show that major discussions, including the Regional Community, Sport and Recreation Precinct update, are being held entirely behind closed doors without detailed justification. Council Watch believes this is contrary to the intent of the Local Government Act and Ombudsman SA’s transparency guidelines.

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. urges the Minister to act decisively to restore transparency and accountability in local governance.

Terry Andrews – Chair, Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.

Phone: 0451 140 543 | Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com

Website counciwatchvictorharbor.com

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.

Council Watch: Crozier Hill Floodplain – Council Still Avoiding the Hard Questions

Victor Harbor, 24 September 2025

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. is deeply concerned by the response given by Mayor Moira Jenkins at Monday night’s City of Victor Harbor Council meeting (22 September 2025), when former Councillor Peter Charles asked why the intent of his 23 November 2020 resolution on floodplain safety has not been fully carried out.

What Was Asked

Mr Charles, speaking from the gallery on behalf of Council Watch, asked:

  • What actions has Council taken to comply with the 2020 resolution regarding the Victor Harbor Watercourses Floodplain Mapping Study?
  • Specifically, have all residents identified as being at risk of inundation in the Southfront report been directly notified?
  • Has a local flood emergency plan been prepared with emergency services, as originally intended?

What Was Answered

Mayor Jenkins replied that the 2020 motion was “withdrawn” and replaced with a weaker resolution for “consultation and education.” She cited a public information session in July 2024, letters to Stock Road residents, and staff training with SES as examples of action taken.

However, she did not confirm that all residents in mapped flood risk zones were ever directly contacted. Instead, responsibility was shifted to residents being “informed” via public sessions and online reports.

Why This Falls Short

Council Watch maintains that:

  1. Intent Ignored: The original 2020 resolution called for direct notification of at-risk residents and a local emergency flood plan. Neither has been delivered.
  2. Selective Action: Only Stock Road residents were written to, leaving other households identified by Southfront uninformed.
  3. Pattern of Avoidance: By disputing whether the 2020 motion was withdrawn, the Mayor sidestepped the real question: why hasn’t Council met its duty of care to inform and protect all residents in danger zones?
  4. Public Safety Risk: Relying on websites and information sessions is no substitute for directly alerting families whose homes are at risk of flooding.
  5. Tone Matters: Rather than engaging with the substance of the question, the Mayor’s response was delivered in a tone that many in the gallery found defensive and dismissive.

Council Watch Calls for Action

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. urges the City of Victor Harbor to:

  • Disclose in writing exactly which residents have been contacted since 2020.
  • Fulfil the intent of the 2020 motion by personally notifying all households within the mapped floodplain.
  • Develop a proper local flood emergency plan in collaboration with SES and other agencies.
  • Stop using procedural arguments to avoid addressing the Crozier Hill floodplain danger.

Quote

“Council has had nearly five years since the 2020 motion, and almost nine years since the floodplain questions were first raised in 2016. Yet residents remain uninformed and unprotected. Flood safety is not optional. It is a duty of care.” – Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
Terry Andrews (Former Councillor, City of Victor Harbor)
PO Box 1753, Victor Harbor, South Australia 5211
Email: councilwatch44@gmail.com

Web:  www.councilwatchvictorharbor.com

Of vital importance to all Victor Harbor residents!

Dear Website readers – below is an email sent to the Minister for Local Government so  that hopefully he will take some action. The new CEO contract  initially was being kept in confidence (secrecy may be a more appropriate word). Documents were only released after inquiries were made by Council Watch.

We feel it demonstrates the lack of accountability and transparency of Victor Harbor Council. Please read carefully what is in the document, as it could have a profound influence on the next Council.

Dear Minister Szakacs,

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. seeks your urgent intervention under Section 273 of the Local Government Act 1999 regarding the City of Victor Harbor Council’s decision on 24 February 2025 to extend the Chief Executive Officer’s contract until 15 January 2031.

Key Concerns

1. Extraordinary Five-Year Contract

  • This contract locks in CEO leadership beyond two electoral cycles — an arrangement Council Watch believes is unprecedented in South Australia.
  • Future councillors are deprived of the opportunity to review performance or adjust leadership priorities at the start of their term.

2. Conflict of Interest

  • The CEO remained in the room while her contract was debated and approved.
  • No resolution exists authorising her presence, despite Sections 75B and 120 requiring officers with material interests to leave.

3. Misuse of Confidentiality

  • The decision was made in confidence under Section 90(2) but all documents were released from confidence on 27 April 2025.
  • The original secrecy provisions appear unjustified.

4. Remuneration Tied to KPIs

  • The 27 August 2025 CEO Performance Review Committee minutes confirm CEO remuneration is directly linked to the upcoming KPI process.
  • Approving a five-year contract before completing the review undermines transparency and accountability.

Request for Ministerial Action

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. respectfully requests that you:

  • Investigate whether the Council’s process complied with the Local Government Act 1999.
  • Review the appropriateness of locking future councils into a contract extending beyond two election cycles.
  • Issue Ministerial guidance on best practice for CEO contracts, KPI reviews, and community transparency.
  • Consider exercising your powers under Section 273 to appoint an independent investigator into governance practices at the City of Victor Harbor.

Terry Andrews — Chairperson

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
Tel : 0451 140 543

councilwatch44@gmail.com | https://councilwatchvictorharbor.com

Response to denial of deputation request

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.