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 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 Fleurieu Inc.

Reply from the Chairman – Mr. Terry Andrews
Date: 12 July 2025

To: Ms. Victoria MacKirdy
Chief Executive Officer
City of Victor Harbor
Email: localgov@victor.sa.gov.au

RE: RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER DATED 8 JULY 2025

Dear Ms. MacKirdy,

Thank you for your correspondence dated 8 July 2025 regarding our recent community update concerning the Victor Harbor Regional Community, Sport and Recreation Precinct (“the Precinct”). We respond here not to inflame disagreement, but to clarify, correct, and continue the public conversation in a way that is rooted in evidence, transparency, and civic responsibility.

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. takes seriously your accusations of misinformation, but we must be absolutely clear: the root cause of these disputes is the consistent absence of verifiable, publicly available information by CVHC about the structure, risks, and terms of the proposed Public Private Partnership (PPP). We stand by our core claims and concerns, which remain grounded in a lack of transparency and community access to vital documents.

1. PPP Model – Assertions Without Evidence

Your claim that the PPP model ensures financial sustainability remains just that: a claim, until proven with documentation. Assertions made without a public business case, prudential report, lease terms, or a value-for-money audit are neither sufficient nor satisfactory.

The Council has asked the public for trust, while withholding the very documents that would justify that trust. That is not how responsible public finance or democratic decision-making should operate.

 2. Cr Quaremba’s Estimate and the Question of Misinformation

It appears the motivation for your letter is linked to Council Watch’s publication of remarks made by Cr Carlos Quaremba during a recent Council workshop—comments made in open session, on public record. We remind the Administration that remarks made in open chamber are part of the public domain, and any community group or media outlet has the lawful right to report, interpret, and comment on them.

The core issue stems from the following exchange, recorded in transcript:

Cr Carlos Quaremba: “Okay. Question for the CEO. What was the projected earnings for council over the period of, um, the lease period of 149 years—return for council on ground leases or rents or rates?”
CEO Victoria MacKirdy: “I don’t have the figure off the top of my head. I’ll go back through the material that we have provided to members and I can get that for you.”
Cr Carlos Quaremba: “I just remember someone saying around 30 million. Does that sound about right?”
CEO Victoria MacKirdy: “Yeah, it was up around there. But obviously depending on the model that council chooses to utilise or implement or not utilise, then that was changed. I actually thought it was a bit more than that, to be honest…”

This exchange cannot be reasonably construed as misinformation or deliberate misrepresentation. Rather, the CEO’s response reinforced the plausibility of the figure presented—acknowledging that the $30 million estimate was “up around there” and possibly “a bit more.” It was a qualified, contextual answer—not a categorical rejection.

To now assert that Cr Quaremba’s comment or Council Watch’s reference to it constitutes “knowingly misleading the community” is not only unfair—it disregards the factual record.

A). Failure to Correct at the Time Is an Administrative Oversight

If the $30 million figure was demonstrably incorrect or misleading, it was incumbent upon the CEO—who was present and chairing the session—to issue an immediate and public correction. That did not occur. Instead, the CEO validated the ballpark nature of the estimate.

Why, then, did it take until 8 July—several weeks later—for the Administration to raise objections and accuse Council Watch of disseminating “misinformation”? If there was concern at the time, it should have been promptly communicated to both Council Watch and other media outlets in attendance. The Administration’s failure to act in a timely manner forfeited that opportunity. A delayed and accusatory response now appears reactive and raises questions about motive.

B). Mischaracterisation of Accord Group’s Response

You also assert that the Accord Group “categorically rejected” the $300 million projection mentioned in our commentary. We dispute this characterisation. The actual statement from the Accord representative was:

“I think that those metrics are completely… yeah, they don’t apply… we’re working through balancing a pretty tight financial model…”

This is not a definitive or categorical rebuttal—it is a vague, technical deflection. No specific counter-estimate was offered, and no detail was provided to clarify what metrics do apply. The statement reflects a group still in negotiation, not one issuing a firm correction of public estimates.

C). Council Watch’s Reporting Was Cautious and Verbatim

Our public commentary carefully cited Cr Quaremba’s remarks verbatim and was clearly identified as commentary—not an official financial statement. The context provided by Council Watch highlighted a logical concern: that over a 149-year lease period, a private party may realise significantly more value than the public return suggested at $30 million.

To now frame that observation as “knowingly misleading” is disingenuous. We have neither invented nor distorted what was said; we merely reported and analysed it in good faith.

D). If the $300 Million Estimate is Incorrect, Publish the Correct Figures

If the Council administration believes the community is being misled by incorrect projections, the solution is not accusation—it is disclosure. The best rebuttal to speculation or concern is transparency. We call on Council to immediately publish:

• The full financial model over the 149-year lease term;
• Ground lease terms and conditions;
• Projected commercial rate revenue streams;
• The net community benefit calculations used to justify the development.

Instead, the community is met with vague responses, rhetorical dismissals, and—most troubling of all—efforts to discourage public discussion by accusing concerned citizens and groups of spreading falsehoods.

E). Suppression of Debate Is Not Governance

The Administration’s response appears less focused on correcting the public record and more intent on narrative control. This raises profound concerns. Open, critical, and sometimes uncomfortable public discourse is fundamental to democratic governance.

The Administration cannot credibly argue that Council Watch has spread misinformation when:

• The comment originated in Council’s own publicly held meeting;
• The CEO did not challenge or correct the remark at the time;
• No factual counter-narrative or figures have been provided since;
• The underlying financial assumptions and contracts remain withheld from public scrutiny.

Until such time as Council provides independently verifiable data showing why the estimate is materially wrong, it is unreasonable to demand silence from media or the public.

F) Our View

In our view, the attempt to frame legitimate public debate and accurate reporting as “misinformation” risks damaging the already fragile trust between Council and community. The core issue is not what Council Watch has said—it is what Council has failed to disclose.

We will continue to report responsibly, transparently, and lawfully. Attempts to intimidate community voices into silence will be called out for what they are.

3. Public Loss vs. Community Benefit

The suggestion that “the community loses nothing” must be interrogated.

Long-term alienation of public land, unknown lease conditions, and commercial exclusivity arrangements all represent potential opportunity costs and governance risks. The offering of vague terms like “spaces for allied health,” “food and beverage,” “passive recreation,” and “retail” fails to provide any concrete plan the public can evaluate. Ambiguity is not consultation.

Without clarification of:

• Ownership rights;
• Leasing structures;
• Public vs private access;
• Revenue share;
• Long-term maintenance responsibilities,

…any claimed benefit remains speculative.

4. Stakeholder Support – Not a Unanimous Endorsement

You reference the Great Southern Amateur Basketball Association (GSABA) and other user groups as supportive. Yet at the public workshop, several stakeholders expressed confusion, concern, and a clear sense of exclusion from current design and planning stages.

We must also ask: Why was the GSABA community-driven proposal—estimated at $16 million—not tabled as a viable option? On what basis was it excluded from the formal Expression of Interest (EOI) process?

If a locally funded, community-based model was available, it should have been examined transparently, not sidelined through selective engagement.

5. Community Consultation – Surveys Without Substance

The community surveys cited, while useful in gauging sentiment, were conducted without access to the core details of the current PPP structure. They therefore do not represent informed consent. Until ratepayers can see the agreements, the costings, and the risk assessments, any public support remains provisional.

6. Governance and Leadership

You reject the suggestion that the Mayor and CEO are pushing this project. However, the Mayor’s casting vote was decisive. The Administration has consistently steered this proposal toward one preferred model, with limited appetite for alternative delivery methods or third-party scrutiny.

That is a leadership position, and it must be accountable as such.

In Closing

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. operates in the public interest and always in good faith. We are not the enemy, nor do we engage in fearmongering—we engage in evidence-seeking. Our members are unpaid volunteers who attend Council meetings to provide independent oversight and reflect genuine community concerns. Conversely, Councillors and Council staff are remunerated for their public roles, with a duty to engage transparently and honestly.

What is often labelled “misinformation” stems not from malice, but from missing information—key facts withheld from the public domain. The community is expected to accept vague descriptors such as “retail,” “allied health,” or “passive recreation spaces,” while fundamental terms—land use, financial models, leasing arrangements—remain undisclosed. That lack of clarity rightly invites scrutiny.

Moreover, the unexplained exclusion of the GSABA community-led proposal—with a  cost  reportedly approximately $16 million—from the EOI process raises serious questions of fairness, probity, and whether alternative, lower-risk options were deliberately sidelined.

Council Watch Fleurieu Inc. encourages a more inclusive and open civic culture—one where difficult questions are welcomed, not resisted; where critique is seen as a democratic necessity, not an act of disloyalty. We believe this shift in approach would benefit all stakeholders and rebuild trust in local government decision-making.

We therefore reiterate our call for Council to release, without delay:

• The full business case and financial model;
• The Heads of Agreement and leasing framework;
• Any risk assessments and legal reviews;
• Audit Committee evaluations and assessment data;
• All alternative proposals considered, including GSABA’s.

Until that occurs, the public is both entitled and justified in continuing to question, challenge, and scrutinise a process that appears closed, yet carries open-ended consequences for the community.

Yours faithfully,
Terry Andrews
Chairman
Council Watch Fleurieu Inc.
📧 councilwatch14@gmail.com
🌐 www.councilwatchvictorharbor.com

Council Watch Victor Harbor Visit the post for more.

We don’t live in an autocratic state or under a dictatorship therefore all residents have a right to protest and voice their concerns as long as its lawful, regards a decision of the Mayor to use her casting vote to go ahead and sign a heads of agreement between the council and a private company, over a PPE that will lock us/Victor Harbor into  a 99 year plus 25 plus 25 [149 in total]Most government leases are between 25 and 40 years

 All residents have a right to speak out and try to stop this agreement from going ahead, so long as it’s lawful.

If this is so great for the town, why isn’t the sporting codes themselves saying they support this concept? Let’s remember this land was bought for ALL sporting groups! 

To my knowledge our Mayor has long held political ambitions and one could wonder if this so called flagship project is a way to gain support for a run to be a candidate in next years elections

William Sullivan Victor Harbor