Verbatim
Question:

What is your position on development?  Is untrammeled countryside development desirable with attendant infrastructure and environmental footprint increase or should we opt for greater town precincts?

The simple answer is No; unrestrained countryside residential development is not desirable.  We residents have made lifestyle decisions to live in this 'shire' because of the way it expresses its unique blend of rural setting independence with the socialising potential of its towns and villages.

Of all questions that will be asked during this election process, this is probably the one that may be the toughest to rally an expedient consensus for. Public opinion is wide and varied and State public policy, such as the Sydney - Canberra Corridor Regional Strategy, is the elephant sitting in the room of any Local Environment Plan (LEP) discussion.

I think the fundamental questions we need to face as a community in defining the goals we want our next LEP to record, are more social than environmental.  I say that because the State has reams of legislation and authorities that protect native wildlife, vegetation, and waterways.  They also deal with a multitude of pollution situations, as well as establish sound and sustainable building practices.  These well considered works exist and function now to the welfare of our community and will continue to do so both before and after our LEP is gazetted.

I think our real issue is to define just how willing are we to share our lifestyle and on what terms. 

At one extreme end of the spectrum is what I call "Fortress Palerang", where there would be no new development or sub-division at all.  Regardless of the seemingly sacred justifications used to assert such a position, the simple message is, 'We're here, now no one else can come'.

At the other extreme of the discussion spectrum is a laissez faire approach that would let anything happen anywhere. With this approach we could end up with the worst of the worst.  These proponents' equally simple message is, 'More is better'.

I think the vast majority of Palerang residents are no where near these two extreme ends but are really much closer to the centre.  Fear of climate change tugs us to the 'fortress' side of centre, while fear of rising Rates tugs us to the 'laisser faire side of centre.  More positive dilemmas are in play too, such as having independent landscapes on the one hand and creating a larger more vibrant community on the other.

If we are going to find a middle road compromise that may not satisfy everyone, but will not disappoint everyone either, then it will come from a board of councilors that is balanced and not one sitting at the extreme ends of the discussion spectrum.  We've been there and done that for four years already!

Like it or not, over arching this need to find a middle path is the reality that our local community is not an island and is part of that larger State community. In turn, we are part of the larger National and Global communities too.  Because of this, the store we put in our Palerang uniqueness is likely to be moderated by the State's need for sustainable population accommodation and economic development to sustain that growing population. 

It seems to me that it is in the best interest of the Residents to be at the front of the agenda of how, rather than if we are going to share our Palerang lifestyle with others. 

Enquiry
Question:

As you are a large landholder, are you also a property developer or planning to do any rural residential subdivision development?

The answer to both parts of this question is a No.  I have never been a residential property developer nor do I have any desire to do so. 

My only development interests are associated with improving sustainable agricultural outcomes, making farming more affordable for younger people to get into, and making it economically sustainable for all people who presently make it their profession or who support local agriculture with supplies and services.

In that process, I think the community needs some co-op shared infrastructure, such as genuine farmers' markets. That would give viable local marketing alternatives to producers. It would also instill confidence to vary somewhat from the predominant path of livestock grazing in the shire.  If that can be done successfully, we will all benefit from better ecological outcomes, greater local employment and broader community prosperity. 

Can you clarify your position on domestic water extraction from creeks after a subdivision, given that a subdivision would have more people potentially accessing the creek?

My overarching view on this very important matter is that whatever rules apply, they should we well considered, publicly debated, be based in State legislation and uniformly applied in like circumstances. 

I fully support Council requirements for new dwellings to have large roof water tanks to maximise the potential for domestic water self-sufficiency.  It seems logical to think that environmental concerns become self-regulating once you start with a rainwater tank that is sufficient to supply all household needs.  That is to say, when there is enough rain to make a creek flow, there isn’t a need to draw from it for domestic use because the tank will have sufficient water too.  On the other hand, if there isn’t enough water in the tank for the household, then there isn’t going to be potable water in the creek to draw from, and the home owner is going to have to truck it in anyway. 

I fully support that new subdivisions should be required to fence out livestock from creeks.

I also think that the Catchment Management Authority has expertise to help determine the question of neutral or beneficial outcome (a concept I fully support) when it comes to water use. It’s my understanding that Council confers with them when subdivisions with dwellings are being considered. Therefore, by the time such a Development Application comes before Council, it should be accompanied by deemed expert views on such matters for Councillors to consider.  That way everything is transparent to all parties and no one can be accused of making professionally unsupported ad hoc decisions of favouritism for one outcome or another.

Is there a golf course at Landtasia and if so did you clear vast areas of land to make it?

There is a links style recreation area at Landtasia that is used by my family, guests and staff.  It’s not a normal golf course as one might think of it, as the fairways are sown and harvested for silage each year and are occasionally directly grazed by our cattle.  After the fodder harvest, we also open the boundary gates between the bush and the links area to allow wildlife to graze there when bush food is most scarce for them. 

This unique area's establishment is part of our agricultural strategy of getting three benefits (fodder production, wildlife conservation and personal recreation) from the same plot.  The playing greens are made from artificial turf and receive no water or chemicals as would normally be the case at a golf course.  As is the case with the whole of Landtasia which is organically certified, no chemicals or artificial fertilizers are used anywhere on the property including the links area.

The land where the links area is established had already been cleared, I'm told in the 1970's and thus, prior to my ownership. For decades it had been grazed hard by sheep. No contemporary broad clearing of any kind was done to establish this strategy.  There was some specific clearing of permissible regrowth vegetation and some for a new internal road around its perimeter, all of which complied with regulations.  Subsequently, we have planted over a hundred trees around the area where there had been no trees at the start of the project.

No less than three NSW government authorities, responding to an unsubstantiated complaint about three years ago, have investigated our work at the site and determined nothing improper has occurred. 

Are you a member of or aligned with a political party?

No. I have never been a member of a political party nor aligned with one. 

At one time or another, I have voted for independents as well as each of the four major parties in elections depending on their policy platform the social circumstances at the time.

Do you support a code of meeting conduct for council meetings?

Absolutely. 

Your website seems a bit over the top for a shire election.  Did you spend a lot to have it done?

No. Actually, this website is totally my own personal work and is a small demonstration that I can Do as well as Talk.  I acknowledge that I have a tendency to write a lot, but I do that for people who want a lot of info. I figure those who just want a little can skim through it.

I don't think the website is over the top at all for a local government election.  Given the limited ability for voters to get information about candidates from the media or from the few words on their Candidate Statement, a website such as this should be the minimum standard for a serious candidate for council. Otherwise, what is the basis a voter can make an informed decision?

In terms of costs other than my time, it will come to about $190 all up by the time of the election.

Your ads mention community ‘prosperity’ a lot.  What do you mean by that and how can council do that?

When I speak of community prosperity here are four examples where good and fearless leadership at council could make a real difference.

1. Lobby for effective commuter transport with enough departures and hubs in Palerang and Queanbeyan/Canberra to make it viable to use. The fuel, vehicle and parking cost savings would be pocketed by the commuters and add to their spendable income. 
   
   
2. Council establish a small employment park where government administration and low impact businesses can set up.  With the support of State and Federal employers, current commuters to government administration jobs can ‘hot desk’ in a secure local serviced office facility.  That eliminates most personal transport costs for commuters and spreads their daytime purchasing power locally rather than in Queanbeyan and Canberra.  If Council owned the facility, it would create a new source of sustainable income in adddition to Rates.
   
   
3. Lobby low impact businesses such as product development, telephone help desks, research, light fabrication, and new government administration activities to establish operations in Palerang.  I have little doubt that within 4 years of an active business recruitment campaign hundreds of full and part time local jobs could be created.  On top of that would come growth in the local service sector too.
   
   
4. Establish permanent co-op Fresh Food Farmers Markets initially in Braidwood and Bungendore.  Local farmers don’t grow the fruits and vegetables they could to feed our communities because they don’t have affordable storage or market outlets.  It can cost more to grow fruit, veg and grain than it does livestock, so to make it affordable to do so, farmers need to be able to market their fresh produce directly.

In doing so, community prosperity would grow because those fresh food dollars stay local and are not sent off to wholesalers in Sydney or Brisbane.  In addition, the markets would be a magnet for health conscious consumers from Canberra to Goulburn who what fresh produce with low-food-miles, and they would also be a magnet for tourist and cultural activities that would generate more jobs and revenue locally.

I’d envision this to be a multifaceted community-wide initiative taking about 3 years to establish.

These are just a few examples of how we can go about using very little resource to produce a sizable community prosperity benefit.

Enquiry
Question:

What is your Nationality (ies)?

Australian only. 

Verbatim
Question:

Should council have a greater planning input in actual building forms aiming for low energy requirements?

I think this is adequately handled for the time being with the State's BASIX requirements ( www.basix.nsw.gov.au ). 

BASIX is the online sustainability and energy efficiency tool used to rate new and extended residential dwellings.  A new proposed dwelling is required to pass all levels of BASIX to obtain a certificate to be lodged with all residential plans.  This approach allows home builders to choose which energy efficient methods are appropriate for their particular site and design, while achieving an overall energy efficiency goal.

What is your opinion on small scale, town by town, power generation?  Should council have a brief in that area?

I think that micro wind and photovoltaic electricity generation at the place of use can make a big contribution to local power generation.

I have no doubt that both technologies will have marked decreases in price over the next few years.  By focusing local generation at the point of consumption, there is little energy transport waste or infrastructure capital and maintenance.

My neighbours have no mains power and run a very normal home just on a small wind turbine and a few PV panels that are hardly visible.  If they didn't tell you they weren't on mains power, you would never know it.

At the community level, Council could potentially be a source of waste matter, from its sewage works, for anaerobic digestion heat and electricity generators. However, I think we would want to have a fully costed business case that shows there would be no cost to the rate payers before asking Council to get involved as a power generator.