[email protected] www.mda.asn.au Murray Darling Association Inc. T (03) 5480 3805 ABN: 64 636 490 493
463 High Street P.O. Box 1268 Echuca, Vic 3564 3rd Floor, 553 Kiewa Street P.O. Box 359 Region 2 AGM and Ordinary Meeting Albury, NSW 2640 Date: Friday the 27th November 2015, Time: 10:00am Location: Deniliquin RSL - Mountbatten Room Address: 72 End Street, Deniliquin NSW 2710
MINUTES
1. ATTENDANCE 1.1. Present
Mr Greg Toll Chair Ms Emma Bradbury Chief Executive Officer Mr Des Bilske Deniliquin Council Cr Colin Jones Berrigan Shire Cr Bernard Curtin Mayor Berrigan Shire Mr Viv McGee Individual Member Mr Robert Danieli Individual Member Cr John Zobec Individual Member Mr Don Oberin Life Member Cr Ian Moon Murray Shire Cr Geoff McKenzie Individual Member Cr Jen Campbell Individual Member Cr Bill Anderson Murray Shire Mr Johann Rajaratram City Greater Shepparton Cr Ash Hall Mayor Deniliquin Council Ms Lyndal Humphris Guest Speaker Mr Ken Pattison Individual Member Cr Andrew Howley Deniliquin Council Cr Peter Connell Deniliquin Council Cr Jeff Shand Deniliquin Council Cr Pat Fogarty Deniliquin Council Ms Jenny Johnson Individual Member Cr James Williams City of Gr Bendigo Cr Ruth McRae Mayor Jerilderie Shire Ms Louise Burge Individual Member Cr Laurie Henery Jerilderie Shire
1.2. Apologies Cr Dennis Patterson City of Gr Shepparton Cr Dini Adem Mayor C of Gr Shepparton Mr Chris Teitzel City of Gr Shepparton Cr Helen Leach City of Gr Bendigo Cr Ed Cox Moira Shire Cr David McKenzie Moira Shire Cr Terry Hogan Jerilderie Shire
Motion: That the apologies be accepted
V McGee/C Jones Carried
2. WELCOME 2.1. Mayor of Deniliquin – Cr Ashley Hall
Ashley Hall On behalf of Deniliquin council, welcome to Deniliquin, on the banks of the Edward River. I thank you for choosing our beautiful town for the venue of the Region 2 annual general meeting. Since the Murray Valley Development League was formed in 1944, later becoming the Murray Darling Association, there has perhaps never been a more important time in its history, nor a more vital role for us to play. Communities like Deniliquin rely on water. It's our liquid gold for our very existence. We saw through the millennium drought what can happen to our town and region when water supplies and food production ground to a trickle. Today, it's not mother nature which is imposing a threat to maximizing our region's potential, rather what has been termed a political drought, forced upon us by the removal of water from our productive use.
Across the Murray-Darling Basin it's vital that sufficient water is available to protect the environment, and I'm sure I speak for the vast majority of members saying this is commended. However, we need to ensure that there is the right balance. Under the basin plan, the social and economic fabric of our communities is supposed to be protected. There is supposed to be equal weight given to the environment, the economy, and our people. This is not occurring. As such, the food production is suffering. As an association, it's important we continue applying appropriate political pressure to ensure that the triple bottom line, as it's been called, is achieved. We need to continue highlighting the advocacy priorities so we can enjoy the Murray-Darling Basin that is environmentally sound, to all Australians to enjoy, at the same time continues to be the food bowl of our nation, providing clean green domestically and exported markets. This will ensure communities like Deniliquin just don't meander along, but grow in economic prosperity.
Presently, we are fortunate to have two state significant projects on our table: a multi-million dollar abattoir upgrade, plus a new ethanol plant which will provide this region with a great economic boost. We are on the cusp of exciting times, as such it's never been more important that this organization advocates for government policies required to ensure we take full advantage of the priorities which are presented. Again, welcome to Deniliquin, and I trust you enjoy your time in a small part of the Murray-Darling Basin. Thank you.
3. MINUTES 3.1. Minutes of the previous meeting on 3rd July 2015, in Bendigo.
Motion: That a) the minutes be amended to reflect that Cr Ian Moon had moved that Region 2 support the Senate inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin plan, that the motion was seconded and carried, and b) that the minutes, so amended be accepted as a true and accurate record of the meeting.
I Moon/R Danieli Carried
4. BUSINESS ARISING 4.1. Motions for the AGM 2015 – Outcomes
Chief Executive Officer Following up on the motion at the 2014 AGM advocating for increased water storages. The MDA, following the AGM in Tumut, wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary, who was then the Honorable Bob Baldwin, advocating for increased water storages and for further work to be done to explore what the opportunities in that space were.
Response referred us to the Water Infrastructure Ministerial Working Group and the white paper on agricultural productivity, which essentially said that a significant amount of money had been set aside for water storage capacity work, to be considered. Although, to paraphrase, essentially no new money for new dams. There is some further work to be done to get a better understanding, by our members, of what the implications of the recommendations in the white paper on agricultural productivity are, given there's some opportunity there for that further work to be done, and that's where it's up to though.
Don Oberin I’d like to discuss options for preferred sites for increased water storages, and for that advice to be provided to the senate select committee enquiring into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Item to be discussed later in the agenda.
4.2. Communications between MDA and DELWP
Chief Executive Officer The MDA has facilitated a conduit between the MDBA and DELP to better share information in relation to the work that DELP has been doing on flood mitigation and levy bank assessments.
4.3. MDA Foundation
Chief Executive Officer The Murray Darling Foundation has been identified as having a number or non- compliances with its governing legislation over the last year or so, which the MDA has been working through.
In order to better comply with the recommendations of the REO, the board has resolved to change the name to the MDA Foundation, so that it at once identifies the foundation as being an entity of the association.
The Foundation is now fully compliant and needs to start to rebuild and set its strategic direction.
5. REPORTS 5.1. Chair Region 2 – Mr Greg Toll Written report - attached
5.2. CEO’s Report Chief Executive Officer provided a verbal report
The regions are absolutely powering on. The various different regions are really starting to articulate their positions on a number of issues. With the enhanced communication within the executive through our marketing and communications role, and our web page, that feedback is becoming far more two-way and far more effective. Regions are starting to also provide information to be posted on the website for other regions to then share. With that greater communication, there's a growing appetite and capacity for shared solutions among the regions. From the executive's point of view, we're feeling quite confident that the staff and myself are providing a better format for the regions to collaborate and progress and better able to then deliver on a strategic plan when that's developed.
The board met last Friday and have resolved to commence work on the development of a strategic plan which is something that has absent for some time across the organization. The preparation work has commenced already but the Board is planning to meet in February to pull together a strategic plan with an appropriate facilitator. That's just from the executive side of things, I don't think there's much more.
Unfortunately we're currently down to a very small staff and, based on that it's more important than ever, that the regions are clearly cognizant of what their role is in ensuring that the strategy and purpose of the organization is being delivered at all levels. It's very important that the regions recognize that the executive is there to deliver on the strategic plan and that it is the Board, and then the regions through that, that develop it.
Questions and discussion ensued, providing the following information.
Currently MDA has an effective full-time equivalence of 2.2. The Chief Executive Officer and Alice Russell, Marketing and Communications Officer. Alice is well-placed to be leadership for the organization into the future, if she can be retained. Succession-planning and talent-nurture is extremely important to continue to deliver strongly against strategy. Also Sandra, the Office Manager on 0.2.
Finance Manager in Stan Gibney has recently advised that he has resigned the position. He will continue to provide some support to me on finance matters, and may provide direction and assistance there. Very important that the MDA retains the services of a very competently qualified Finance Manager.
Previously, the structure of the organization was quite different. There was a GM down in Adelaide, a project manager in Albury and the strength of the various regions was dependent largely on the level of engagement by whatever staff were located in different areas. In the 5 years prior to tenure of the current Chief Executive Officer, office staff were located at Adelaide, Albury, Mildura, Kerang, Murrabit, and Swan Hill. MDA is now centrally located in Echuca with the ability to attract good staff. The organization must now develop a strategic plan in order to determine what staffing requirements are required and how to fund them.
Question about the current state of the finances.
The Chief Executive Officer The board was advised last week, that they have two options. Right now, the MDA has 3 months operating cash-flow available, under the current operating structure. It was put to the board to decide: do they, do you call it a day and start winding-up procedure because it will take 3 months to do that. Or, do you choose to use that 3 months to identify and secure further income and revenue.
The Board made the decision that, they felt with clarity, and stability, and certainty moving forward into the future, it is their choice to trade on. They did not instruct me to commence winding up procedures. They were very clear in that. The board noted that this organization's been running for 70 years, and has been in this position and worse before. At the commencement of the current Chief Executive Officer’s tenure the organization was not paying its bills as and when due, and did not know what its cash-flow and financial position was.
The MDA is now clearly aware of what the current financial position is, and has higher standards of accountability and more controlled financial management processes and structures.
The Board resolved to work to continue to trade, and to go forward and attract that funding required to do that. That said, obviously that is a decision that they will, as board members, have at front and center of their mind at all times given that they have then the responsibility to carry that decision forward or to wear the responsibility of that decision.
Don Oberin: Concerned that for an organization that's been around since 1944 to fall over at this time, in a crisis with the worst drought this country's seen, rendering the entity unable to help the people that have helped keep this organisation alive was deeply concerning.
Viv McGee If we've got to wait till February before we get a direction from the Board as to how they're grappling with this and what their intentions are that will be too late. I talked about this with colleagues over the recent weeks and one of the things that is a concern to me is that we've lost a bit of strength from our local government communities. Our great strength, I believe, comes from having representatives through local government. I just need to be assured that there's some strategy in place whereby if we're facing the chop, what has been done to resurrect that support that we once had.”
Chief Executive Officer The Board also acknowledged exactly that point in their discussions at the last board meeting. It is imperative that the MDA does re-engage and provide that certainty and clarity for our core membership, which is local government. It's an organization that is of local government, by local government, for local government. They've acknowledged that getting back to that core base is an imperative. Obviously this is the AGM season. This meeting today is one of those AGMs and from here, once we've established where we're at, the Board has then resolved to travel immediately towards going and finding that funding, well prior to February.
Geoff McKenzie If the worst happens and the organization goes insolvent, who's responsible for the insolvency debt, and asked a second question regarding voting rights.
Chief Executive Officer My role as CEO is to provide sufficient information on a timely basis to enable board members to make properly informed decisions.
The board members are responsible for the decisions they take and by extension liable, for the position of the organization. Chief Executive Officer expressed confidence that the board members do have adequate and sufficient, timely information to be aware that they're making informed decisions on that.
Ian Moon What is the cost of all of these compliance lawyers and the new constitution that was drawn up? Has that been full funded and paid for?
Chief Executive Officer Russell Kennedy Lawyers have provided their support to the organization on a pro bono basis. Russell Kennedys have got a long-standing relationship with the MDA so, in terms of out-of-pockets
other than the staff's time, there is no further cost. Nothing. Zero.
In terms of compliance, it's not so much a question of: what is the cost of ensuring that the organisation is operating in a manner that complies with legislation. The cost of ‘delivering compliance’ is the time and expertise of the Chief Executive Officer and the staff, which I agree, could better be used delivering on purpose and strategy that's directed by the regions. The cost of not operating in a compliant manner is essentially the existence and future of the organisation, and the liability for those responsible.
The board members are responsible and they're not prepared to do that [allow the organisation to bypass its compliance obligations, and as a CEO I would not be prepared to operate in that manner.
Geoff McKenzie Just a further comment, Mr Chairman. We've had the Albury office running for many, many years. Almost a permanent staff there. As in South Australia, the association was running very smoothly. It was very effective. Putting out the minutes on time. Giving all the information. We seem to have lost that now. Also there's rumors around, and I'll not be running on rumors, some of the wages that were paid to part-time staff was $400 a day. For bringing in people in for advice. I know one person was brought in who was a family member of a general manager.
Bernard Curtin At issue here is the financial viability of the organisation, and questioned whether the board had turned their mind to the impact on the organisation of the amalgamations that will occur under the Fit for Future review that has occurred across NSW LGAs.
Chief Executive Officer Yes, this issue was considered at the board meeting last Friday. Because of the way that the MDA charges membership fees, the funding from local government members actually won't be impacted. Membership fees are calculated based on per capita of population. The population will remain the same across NSW Basin communities regardless of where the LGA boundaries sit. MDA will still attract the same membership rate, providing the LGA remains a member, because there is no base retainer charged. LGA membership charges are all population based.
Don Oberin We've seen, in our local area, the Campaspe Shire pull out and that's a vital council. Why would they pull out? They're going to pull out and take that whole population away while we're trying to attract people”.
Greg Toll We’ll talk about that more later on.
Ruth McRae Concerns that while the Board may be aware that they have to get exposure to other funding opportunities, they must be aware of the time frame. We all know, in local government, that come the beginning of December, until the end of January, no decisions are made. You try working through the state government. They just don't speak to you, they're not interested in speaking to you. Is that a realistic time frame for the Board to under that constraint, given that nothing will happen in December and January? What exposure are they going to have to anybody, or anything that's going to bring resolution to the issue?”
Chief Executive Officer Christmas break timing was definitely identified as a risk. The consideration was: what's the alternative? There are certainly strategies and opportunities in place that we can act on fairly immediately. Again, I'm not in a position to share that. That's a matter for the Board to provide me with direction on that, once they meet again.
Ruth McRae: My only comment on that comment, Emma, is that if you expect the people in this room, for us to carry this information to our councils we need a lot more put before us so that we can have faith in the fact that some decisions are going to be made, ultimately. And if you can't ... I respect confidentiality-
Chief Executive Officer: No, it's not a matter of confidentiality, Ruth. I'm sharing with you everything I have. It's a matter of determination, I can only share with you the direction, once the decisions have been made - as soon as we have them. I'm not holding anything back. This is your organization, and my role is to serve it. That's it. It is not an issue of confidentiality, or holding anything out, or anything like that. You have what I have.
The Board are very clearly aware that there is a need, there's an imperative to get an understanding out of today, of what the current makeup of the Board into the future looks like, then get back together and immediately identify what the strategy is for going forward and attraction new funding and bringing it back.
They are very clearly aware that you've got a dead zone between November and February, end of November, beginning of February and probably well into February. The other consideration that was raised and discussed at the meeting was around the fact that ... What's the alternative? OK, this is a risk, absolutely. Particularly with this dead zone in here, it is an enormous risk and the board members were very mindful, "Do we take it?" The alternative is, do we throw the towel in and spend that 3 months simply winding up? In which case, we get to the end of the day and there's absolutely nothing left in the can, or do we take the risk and go, and work forward on it. That was their choice to do and they have a belief that they can achieve that. That's where it's at.”
Robert Danieli Mr Chairman, I'd like a point of clarification through the General Manager. Emma, you mentioned something about the constitution being worked on. Which constitution are we currently operating with?
Chief Executive Officer The MDA Constitution 2006, as posted on the website is the current and only constitution of the MDA.
6. GENERAL BUSINESS 6.1. Constraints Strategy Impacts
Greg Toll Thank you. We'll move on to Item 6.1. Constraints, Strategies, Impacts. Now I don't know whether you want to talk to that Emma, or did we have people wishing to talk to that?
Right. Well, As we all know, I chair, well I did chair this organisation until last Tuesday and last Friday, the Murray Darling Association. Until my supporters… on Friday, the Board, they only had 7 there and they voted me out, so I'm no longer National President. I'm just letting you know now, and it has become very untidy, I'm very concerned and I don't know where it's going to go, but I do know there could be a couple of things happening here today.
I quite understand that our money is very short but we were a bloody sight shorter when I took it over two years ago under Ray Najar. Things had to change and I think we've pulled it back into gear. There's been a few disturbing things, there was 4 members that supported me retired, and we've got 4 new members. I'm not quite getting that support in that area. It's quite uncomfortable.
I think what we'll ... I'll go on with the Constraints. I've been fighting very hard for Region 2 and 3, that we do get better water allocation. Certainly, all Board members have a different idea of what they want the water to do.
When I first joined this thing we had water running everywhere so nobody worried about water. Water has become so finite, it causes ramifications right through the whole basin. I think this is the sort of thing that we're going to discuss later and I'm just letting you know.
Jen Campbell What grounds were you voted out on.
Greg Toll: Because I was not endorsed by my council, and that’s a new rule that had come in in July.
Robert Danieli : I would like to alert the gathering that in general business, I will be bringing this issue up because I'll alert you to the fact that what has happened to Greg is actually unlawful, it's unconstitutional. The new requirement that was brought in does not appear under the constitution, it would have to go all of the members. I will discuss that in detail shortly, so hopefully that speeds a few things up.
Jen Campbell: Region 2 and 3, does Region 3 currently has a Chairman?
Greg Toll: Yes, they do. The previous Chairman resigned because he was dissatisfied with what was going on. I believe we have Mayor Gorey now has come in and taken that job over in Region 3. I believe that Region 3 and Region 2 have the same things happening. We have irrigation. We have rice growing. We have everything there. I think eventually, if we're going to make this organization work we will need to combine
Louise Burge: Have we moved on from the agenda item, or are we able to have some discussion about the constraints?
Just for the MDA's benefit, as many of you know, I've been intimately involved in the constraints issues. I would have to say that it's been a very frustrating, possibly an exhausting, journey. To the point where the Murray- Darling Basin Authority has not approached the consultation on an honest basis? I sit on the Constraints Advisory Group, we've spent nearly 2 years working with the MDBA, providing advice.
The report that was sent to the New South Wales and Victorian government, I described as misleading because the flow figures that were put up and rejected by the Core Constraints Advisory Group were the very flows that were then recorded as, and I'll quote here, on Table 2, page 55 of the Constraints Management Annual Progress Report for 2014.
Flows that appear feasible between Yarrawonga and the Port conjunction, 40-77,000 meters per day. It also, in the same table, says committee for continued investigations. They were the very flows that we had rejected.
When we had asked for the MDBA to correct the information that went to the New South Wales and Victorian governments, we were advised that that couldn't happen. We asked for a letter, the MDBA to send a letter of correction to the governments. They said that couldn't occur. We asked for the report to be re-done. That also couldn't occur. We asked why the decision to send that incorrect information was made. There was a fair bit of shuffling on the seat, and they couldn't provide an answer. Other than, we got out of them that it was at middle- level in the bureaucracy, or the senior-level but it wasn't necessarily at board level.
Where to from here? I then go into the question of asking the MDBA, "How does the situation work under the Murray Darling Association where you get conflicting views?"
For example, I raised the issue of a submission to the Senate Select Committee on behalf of Region 1, which seems to suggest that there's support up at the Albury end for higher flows between Hume and Yarrawonga which for us in this area is quite disconcerting.
Can anyone explain what happens in that situation where one council, region is proposing the flows, and supporting the flows under the MDBA banner and then other councils would be saying a more cautionary approach. How does that work in this organization?
Ken Pattison: Further to that, Mr Chairman, the new Chairman of Region 3 that was elected last Friday has gone on publicly and said that a couple more floods were not a problem. That's completely inconsistent with our Annual Conference, where we had a resolution that said it must meet triple bottom-line objectives, in relaxed constraints, and the impact on communities, our communities of artificial flooding of private freehold land. We now have a Chairman who's gone public, I haven't got the exact words, but said "A couple more floods wouldn't be a problem. The trees'll grow better".
There followed a highly inappropriate, threatening, violent comment by Ken Pattison followed by an offensive racist comment by another member neither of which will be transcribed.
Chief Executive Officer Point of order please, Mr Chair.
Greg Toll : Point of order, ok. I'll be looking for a motion, that we direct to Region 1, and to also the Albury council asking why they've endorsed it.
Louise Burge: Can I just make a comment before Emma [responds]. Firstly, I want to thank the Murray Darling Association for its consideration of the issues affecting the community with the Basin Plan. It has been heartening. I think that out there, there is a huge amount of stress and exhaustion. I think people are frightened. They feel completely disempowered by the government processes. I think there is a lot more pain that is going to affect the regions. There's a lot of decisions still to be made. Whether it be on constraints. Whether it be on water recovery. Rule changes which undermine the reliability of irrigation entitlements.
One thing that a number of us have found most disconcerting is, we don't need decisions taken by organizations that are contrary to the other work by other organizations. I'm just taking this opportunity to ask the Murray Darling Association to be very conscious of the fact that we don't need to be working against each other. I'm not saying that's happened. I'm just saying, please consider it, and consult widely before you take a decision, because the work that many of us are doing on a voluntary basis is killing our businesses, it's killing ourselves. We just don't need any more pain. We're just asking for consultation as widely as possible.”
Greg Toll: I'll now let our CEO answer that question.
Chief Executive Officer Thanks, Louise. That is a terrific point. It's something that the organization is working very, very hard to ensure and avoid. To answer that question, I need to back up on a couple of earlier topics that have been raised.
It was mentioned earlier that the chair of Region 3 resigned and that Cr Neil Gorey is now in the chair. That's not actually accurate. You'd be aware that the MDA has a rule in place requiring councilors who are delegates to the MDA seek the endorsement of their council to do so before standing for a position on the regional executive.
It's not a constitutional requirement. It is a policy adopted by the Board. As noted, there is a policy requiring that all councillors must have the support of their council in order to stand for a position on the Executive. Whether that's regional, or by extension, national. That is the rule.
At the AGM of Region 3 in Kerang on Tuesday, the Chair Cr Oscar Aertssen, from Gannawarra Shire elected not to stand again. There were no other nominations received. There was some discussion at the meeting that perhaps Councillor Gorey may stand as interim Chair.
I provided that advice, that in order to be in any role within the Executive, a councillor must have the support of their council. Exactly for the reasons already identified. One can't be issuing positions, and ideas, and statements that don't have the endorsement of one’s council. That is absolutely an imperative. That is the mechanism, and the process, by which MDA can achieve what Louise is talking about. Ensuring that the positions are filtered through an appropriate process, through their councils and then through their regions.
I'm aware that the submission to the Senate Inquiry by Region 1 has been seen as quite contentious and the Board have considered that specifically.
The submission to the Senate Inquiry by Region 1 followed a very strong process in that space. The Chair of Region 1 does have the support of the Albury City Council. At a meeting earlier in the year, Albury's Chair, Councillor Thurley called on his members to provide feedback for what is an issue that they were to make a submission on. They then made a submission, and while it's not inconsistent with the position of the MDA as a whole, a number of elements have been selectively identified, and may have been taken out of context. That is not entirely helpful.
It may not have been entirely as articulate as it could be in terms of other priorities by other, upstream communities. On that, it's really important that the regions do work closely together, really closely together.
I'll give you another very good example of where that has occurred. Region 6. Now, Region 6 is the Coorong, and as you are aware, there isn't a region that is more, potentially, at odds, in terms of their positions on solutions to local issues, with the rest of the Basin, than the Coorong.
Chair of the Region 6, Cr Featherston, and their council, which is Alexandrina Council and all of those councils in Region 6 are very mindful, and work very closely with the Executive to ensure that any positions that they articulate, while they are looking at solutions to local issues based on local knowledge, that they try very hard that are mindful of the perspectives of upstream communities. That's working really well. That's been the case in this last year and we worked quite closely together on putting together a submission, the MDA's national submission to, I think it was the Senate Inquiry.
The Coorong's, that is Region 6's submission to the Senate Inquiry were not in lock-step, but they were not inconsistent and they were not mutually exclusive or destructive. I think that, as in R1, is an achievement to be proud of. There is a really strong appetite among our region Chair's to collaborate more strongly in order to avoid exactly what Louise is talking about. Does that provide a bit of clarity?”
Ken Pattison: Then why have we got such a feral outcome from Albury.
Robert Daniele: I can answer that because I spoke to this Thurley chap. I said I was disappointed with his submission. I said, "Did you actually consult with your community?" He said, "No. We consulted between our group". I know for a fact that there are people downstream of the Hume dams that are absolutely terrified about what's being said. There would be no way that the local rural community would ever agree with Thurley's opinion. We've got to be careful about who is advising this group.”
Louise Burge: Just to clarify, Emma. I wasn't commenting on individual regions processes that's theirs. I was just talking about this organization, the Murray Darling Association as a whole. I'm just making a request, I'm not criticizing, I'm just asking for really good dialog. Of course, I'm disappointed with Region 1, but I wasn't making a comment so much.
Greg Toll: If you're disappointed with Region 1, would you like to move a motion that we contact Region 1 and ask them for their references.
Louise Burge: I'm picking up on the comment. I have spent a number of years directly talking to the Murray River Action Group which represents farmers between Hume and Yarrawonga weir. They are very, very nervous about the proposed flow changes. Equally, for anyone downstream, we are, in this region, we're very, very nervous because then those flows are there, they are going to be timed to release with unregulated flows down the Ovens, King and Kiewa. Which means higher flood risk for this region.
What we're asking for is common sense. We've said all the way through, we will work with environmental flows that are safe, practical, realistic and where good flooding impacts can be addressed. We will not support flows that have that flooding risk, so I would be very happy to move a motion of concern in relation to Region 1's position. I haven't got the exact motion but it would be along the lines that express concern about the position taken from Region 1, and encourage Region 1 to consult and to re-consider their position.
Greg Toll: Thank you. Would somebody like to second that? Second, Rob Danieli. Would anybody like to add to the conversation please?
Ken Pattison: It's inconsistent with the resolution we just passed at our Annual Conference.
Chief Executive Officer Ken, just to clarify, what specifically do you see as the inconsistency between the R1 submission and the position adopted at the AGM?
Ken Pattison: Region 1 are not consistent with our resolution. It's out of order. Just what's been passed and Louise has said. I've never seen the prostitution and mis-information that is coming through, by the Murray-Darling Basin and to the state governments and the state governance.
Chief Executive Officer: Through you, Mr Chair, can I again request that all language be kept temperate and respectful at the meeting. I think it's most important.
Rob Danieli What's being disrespectful? How are we being disrespectful?
Greg Toll I'm not too sure.
Greg Toll seeks clarification on the wording and intent of Louise Burge’s motion.
Louise Burge: A motion that we write to Region 1 expressing concern on how he [Region 1] has endorsed or support the use of higher releases from Hume Dam to achieve overbank flows between Hume Dam and Yarrawonga Weir, including to achieve environmental objectives, including flood-plain inundation from time- to-time. We ask them to reconsider, and to consult with affected parties and regions in order to assist them with their future decision making.
Conversation becomes slightly confused. Don Oberin suggests that a letter be sent to Murray River Commission, as the controller of the outlets of all the reservoirs. Greg Toll agrees we could send them a copy. Louise Burge redirects the issue back to R1’s submission to the Senate enquiry and suggests that that river operations be considered as a separate issue. Rob Danieli suggests that the Murray River Action Group could be included as a group with whom Region 1 be directed to consult. Viv McGee asks why it would be allowed a region to individually say something without it going through the national executive. Greg Toll confirms that is how it should work. Viv McGee asks what we are even doing discussing the R1 submission. Greg Toll notes that “its gained a lot of momentum”. Viv McGee suggests that a letter be sent by the national executive to say “What do you think you are doing?” Greg Toll states “Well, they sent a letter to me to ‘Get out’ “. Viv McGee says Region 1 are totally out-of-order. They're entitled to their opinion the same as we are. I think in terms of a statement from our association, that has to be corrected. I think the letter should be going to the association executive. The executive have to put out the correct statement and that is that what Region 1 have said is not our national policy. Greg Toll states “Personally, I don't think you'll get it up because we've got three people in South Australia very anxious to get all the water we can send down there to them.” Des Bilske addresses the Chair and the meeting returns to order.
Des Bilske: One of the things that I think we've got to think about here is that creating disputes between regions is only going to create greater division in the whole organization. The organization is under stress at the moment. What we've got to do is try and build the relationship between the regions. I support Louise's motion to write a letter into Region 1 and ask them to reconsider their position.
One of the things we need to point out at the same time, is that their position is actually in conflict with what the New South Wales' government position is. Niall Blair, in May issued a media release that said that any of the actions will not be detrimental to the local businesses and communities. We need to start to re-affirm those things and look at, what are the issues we're actually addressing? How can we make sure that what we're supporting is not going to be detrimental to the local businesses and communities.
Make sure that Region 1 are discussing the matters with their communities and actually getting their communities' position as well so that they make sure that it's not only their community, but it's also all of the communities downstream of that area.
Ruth McRae: One of the best things to do would be for Emma to research, and put in place, exactly the right process and then she can see with Louise and whoever has got something to bring to the table for this motion, so that we get it correct, we don't send anybody. We just simply put the facts as they are. Rather than all of us trying to second-guess it here at the moment. Would that not be the best thing to do? As Geoff, and Des, and Louise, and everybody, and Viv have pointed out. We're here, trying to make sure that this entity remains viable. We don't want to upset people, but the best thing about it, obviously historically, is that people have had their say and they've all worked to the same agenda. Let's hope ... Let's not hope. We are confident that Emma will get the correct process, and we'll work though her. She can speak with the people who are trying to put this issue to bed. Rather than us all trying to come up with something here and now.
Greg Toll: Well, it could be. I'm not too sure. It was seconded by Rob Danieli. I still think,
personally, that we should send a letter to Region 1, saying ... It was put out on the emails. It went everywhere. Louise did put a motion. She did get a seconder, so I'm going to call for a ... If there isn't any further comment, I'm going to ask for a vote. For or against. So has anybody got any further comments?
Louise Burge: My original wording was along the lines that we write to Region 1, expressing concern about the position statements as I read out, as Jonathan read out at the end. Which was ‘supports the use of higher releases from the Hume dam to achieve environmental objectives including the flood-plain’ etc. That they fully consult with affected other parties, stake-holders and reconsider their position.
I actually agree with what Geoff has said. I think it brings out the broader issue; What does the Murray Darling Association ... How is it's emblem, or name used? Do you have submissions from every single one, all conflicting with each other, or is there one submission from the Association that says X or Y depending upon what's been agreed upon. Probably that's a fundamental flaw in the system. Taking on board what you have said about the sensitivities of the moment and the need to work together.
Maybe, as a very first step, just do the letter through the executive expressing concern on how he [Region 1] has endorsed or support the use of higher releases from Hume Dam to achieve overbank flows between Hume Dam and Yarrawonga Weir, including to achieve environmental objectives, including flood-plain inundation from time- to-time. We ask them to reconsider, and to consult with affected parties and regions in order to assist them with their future decision making.
Greg Toll Sought and received confirmation from Rob Daniele that he was satisfied with that as the seconder.
Motion: That the executive write to Region 1 expressing concern that they have expressed support for the use of higher releases from Hume Dam to achieve overbank flows between Hume Dam and Yarrawonga Weir, including to achieve environmental objectives, including flood-plain inundation from time-to-time. Request that they reconsider their position, and to consult with affected parties and regions in order to assist them with their future decision making.
L Burge/R Danieli Carried
6.2. Water Storages
Greg Toll: Is there any further thing on the constraints. If not, we'll move on to water storages. This is the one where you can come in Don with where you think we should be looking at dams because there's far better qualified people than me to tell me where dams should be.
Don Oberin: Put in more reservoirs in the catchment areas. There's land up there. The Buffalo and the Thomson down near the Salisbury desalination plant. There's sites everywhere.
The Senate Committee wanted to know particular sites. Now, we don't have the sites in our area, but we know where the sites are above us. We add to what's currently there. I think there's a reservation made in the Ovens, and the Buffalo dam up in the north-east. There's engineers have got the land put aside, the permits are all there, we've just got to activate it.
Here we are, the brains-trust and the caretakers of our natural resources. Let's catch some water if we can, where we can capture it.
The infrastructure below the Hume dam is all there. The Tupaloo dam, the Snowy and the other big dams up there. The inlands capacity is right, we've got the Tumut, the Talbingo. The sites are there. The land's available.
Rob Danieli: . The Upper Buffalo dam was suggested by, I think, Sir Henry Bolte back in 1941 and there was land that's been set aside. It would be a terrific site. It would add so much security as it is a high
rainfall area. Despite what people say about sustainable diversion limits, I think it would certainly be achievable to fill something like the Big Buffalo.
If you want to push if from another angle, we're certainly looking for more renewable energy and so that's another site for hydro. You've got hydro on the Little Buffalo and it would be interesting to combine solar and hydro, and as water is released from Big Buffalo and Little Buffalo and generate power. The solar during the day could also pump water back and so it's a recycling solar-hydro system. That's an idea to put forward.
I think we should be endorsing Big Buffalo. It's the only one that's in our area along the Murray-Darling that I can think of. All the other ones are outside the Murray-Darling.
Don Oberin: Murray Gates. The Kiewa hydro scheme is only half constructed. They left it and went to the Snowies. It needs to be fully constructed. A tunnel from the Kiewa river into the Hume would put 500 giga-liters of water into the Hume which could then be stored, and hydro power generated out of that. The drilling machines that they've got available now are so simple. You maintain the flows down the bottom of the Kiewa river. If the Kiewa hydro scheme was completely finished it would be another huge resource, and could be stored in Hume and generate power.
Ken Pattison: We missed the boat with the Clarence, we really did, because that would have sent all the water down. It would have answered a lot of water going down to the South Australian. Down through the Darling.
Greg Toll: I'm looking for a recommendation, please, from somebody that we write to the Federal Government.
Motion: That the MDA adopt and develop an advocacy priority, and write to the federal and state governments requesting that they investigate options for the increase of water storages and efficiency options at Big Buffalo, Kiewa Hydro Scheme; connecting Kiewa River to the Hume; Murray Gates; Toopalo; The Thompson Dam; and the Clarence River.
D Oberin/Viv McGee Carried
6.3. Voting Rights
Greg Toll: I think we'll move on to Voting Rights. Certainly this has been a contentious issue. Emma might run through a couple of ideas and then I'll expect a few other people'll make comments. Please.
Chief Executive Officer: Those of you who have been in the organization far longer than me will be aware that the concerns relating to voting rights have been around for longer, certainly than I have. Over the last 12 months, the Executive have been doing a lot of work in relation to getting a better understanding of what the intention is, within the constitution, around voting rights.
Recently, I think it's all been agreed and it's been presented at the last two AGMs that, while the essence of our constitution is solid, there are challenges. It is a really good document, and it sets out the intentions of the founding fathers really well. Unfortunately, just in terms of being re-structured, and re-worded, and amended over the years, the wording has created a situation where much of it is un-implementable and is inconsistent with itself. That makes it a very unwieldy instrument.
One of the challenges then is the voting rights. I know there's been a lot discussion, particularly at the last AGM, about the value, and the importance of, continued representation by individual members and that it's important that they don't lose the voting rights. I've spent a bit of time over the last couple of months getting a better understanding of how the voting rights operate at other organisations, including the Liberal Party. Which is very similar, in structure: they have branches; state electoral councils, federal electoral councils and then the national overall. There's multiple levels and layers. You have members who have different categories of membership.
Much as we do at the MDA.
While local government is definitely our core representative process organizations, our individual members, are absolutely pivotal to the information and collaboration that we achieve as regions.
Under the constitution, any individual who is a member has a vote at the region. The regions then, also have the opportunity to delegate those members to the national council – to vote at the National AGM. Any council, obviously also has its quota of votes.
That's where they get their stronger voice because they're representative of larger communities. Where the individual members retain their capacity to vote and inform at the national level is through delegation within the regions. Similar to the arrangements within a political party.
Not every individual gets to go to State Conference at a political party, and vote on matters. It's up to their branches and their state electoral regions to delegate a certain number of voting individuals, or voting members, to the next level. That's exactly what it is here.
I'll attribute the confusion around the voting protocols for the organization back to the fact that the intention in the constitution is solid, but the understanding of it and its articulation is deeply flawed, due to poor drafting as the amendments have cut and changed the document over the years.
The reason this is an agenda item is because it's important that the regions actually provide direction for the executive in how they want the voting to work, to inform the review of the Constitution. I'll throw it back to you, Mr Chair.
Rob Danieli: I hear the CEO say that it's totally flawed, the voting rights. In who's opinion is it flawed?
Chief Executive Officer: Just to clarify, Mr Chair. I’m not suggesting the voting rights are flawed. The articulation of how it's written in the constitution is very difficult to understand, and the experience of this organisation over the last decade has shown the challenge that creates. That's what's flawed. I offer no opinion either way on the intention of the voting arrangements beyond that.
Rob Danieli: Mr Chairman, please can we have a rectification of how we refer to our General Manager, please, because there is no CEO of this organization. There is only a General Manager, and the General Manager has a specific role. We should acknowledge that.
Number 2. I've had this constitution analysed by my legal representatives and they believe that that it's a very simple, very clear, very concise constitution. Eight pages. You can't get confused. It's very clear on voting rights. Any private member has a vote, AGM, anything. The councils have votes depending upon how many people they represent in their shire. It's very clear. I don't think we need get embroiled in that. The constitution is very clear. If we want to change the constitution, yes, let's discuss it. That's got to be taken to an AGM. I think it is unambiguous and we need to understand why there is this push that there's something wrong.
Geoff McKenzie: I personally think, and speaking of myself, I'm a councillor, I'm a private member and I'm speaking for my point of view. I think that this organization, if it is going to exist, it's got to get back to the grass-roots representation of the people that use the water, use the water for the farming. The farmers spend their money in the towns. If we're not careful, this whole organization will be run from a city desk and it will get the wrong result for the purpose it was put there in the first place.
These dams that are up in the hills sending water down for environmental flows. Up and down the banks and the banks corrode. Falling because of, one day it's up here, next day it's down there and the wet banks are falling. Erosion happens.
I think that this organization, if it is going to exist, and exist as an organization, the rights have got to go back to
the people that are most concerned about the water. Not the speedboats, not the houseboats, not the all the other people. Back to the people who produce something with the water. That fellow that holds the most water in Australia, David Papps, he gets nothing out of his mega-liters of water. Not a thing. What do the farmers get? They get crops, they feed us. Without a farmer we don't feed. David Papps, with nearly all the water in the system, feeds no one. No one. The lizards.
I'm just saying, if we don't respect the private members in this organization, and get the power back to the people. Make it something that you want to be member of. Not something where a couple of old fuddie-duddies like me, a dinosaur, sit up and make decisions for people.
Jeff Shand: Geoff, I'm not saying anything against you, but if we gave the farmers everything, we'd end up with bloody nothing in the river environmental-wise. You need the balance. You really do. Plus the fact, we're under a democracy and they have got the votes. We have got to be much smarter, and work around how to get what we want to get through. We know Papps is the water holder. Constitutionally, he cannot let that water out. We've all listened to him. He cannot let that water out, so where we should be going is through our political people to try and get that water released for agricultural use. I thought that was the concept.
As a taxpayer, if the government just give the rice farmers the water, I'm going to be extremely annoyed because it could gone have to a higher crop. The point is, it needs to go out and they need to deal with these issues so that the water can then be put back on the market in an orderly market, or whatever we're trying to do. At the moment, Papps cannot hand that water out. He's made that one hundred per cent clear through our democratic process.
Geoff McKenzie: I understand and I concur exactly with that. My concern is that water is owned by people, people that are not irrigators. Not a CEO of a superannuation fund in New York and he rings up and says sell.
Jeff Shand: I know that Geoff, but at the end of the day, our illustrious leader now, paved the way for water to become separated from land. That's the issue that we've got on the table and that's the issue that we have to deal with. How we skin the cat from here on is what we are trying to decide.
Jen Campbell: I'm private member and I'm totally against removing the voting rights away from private members who are the irrigators and the people who require this water for their very survival. Having their rights quietly eroded by the heads of this organization.
I support Mr Danieli's comments and I think the voting rights of the MDA are fine. Our own council's consult and I don't believe they necessarily represent all the people.
Can we clarify? They were saying that there's room for confusion and Robert's saying that there's no room for confusion. Now, It's my understanding that currently, as a council member I can vote on everything that happens here today but I can't vote at a national ABM?
Greg Toll: You can now. They are trying to change it, there are people out there trying to change it. Would you like to move something, Robert? That the voting rights are there in our constitution? They'd be the ones we run with from now on.
Motion: That the voting rights as they currently exist in the Constitution be maintained.
R Danieli/I Moon …
Jen Campbell: Robert, that constitution date is when? 2006?
Des Bilske: I think we need to say that it's the constitution of 2006, as amended-
Rob Danieli: No, there's no legal amendment. If anyone has attempted to amend this constitution, they've done it unlawfully. It must go to the AGM and according to our chairman at the time at the AGM, there was no such motion. This is the sole constitution. No matter what anyone would like to say this is the Constitution, there is no amendment.
Des Bilske: There are amendments that were listed that were adopted at AGM's particularly in 2008, 9 and in 2013.
Greg Toll: We retain the voting rights as they are in the Constitution. Is everybody clear on that? I'll put that motion
Motion: That the voting rights as they currently exist in the Constitution be maintained.
R Danieli/I Moon Carried
Greg Toll: Now, the other one I'd like something to move that we write to Stan (Gibney). He's been our accountant and he certainly straightened out all books very well in the last four or five months that he's been there. Seeing as he's leaving us I'd like someone to move there we write to our accountant and will be thanking him for his services because he's done a wonderful job and he certainly made me a lot clearer on where, financially, we probably are going to.
Motion: That the MDA writes to Stan Gibney, thanking him for his services to the organisation.
D Bilske/J Zobec Carried
Rob Danieli: Can you inform me who is our national chairman? You said you were, as of last Friday-
Greg Toll: I was asked to step down. David Thurley.
Chief Executive Officer: The position of national president is vacant and the vice president is acting until the meeting, until a new election is held.
Ian Moon That David Thurley, who has all of a sudden taken on that position, and has made a mockery in respect to constraints. Isn't that somewhat scary?
Greg Toll Very Scary
Rob Danieli I'll answer what your inquiry was about. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say unfortunately this is quite a serious matter. It goes to the heart of how this organization has been running. I think the organization has been running without following the constitution. I think our CEO has overstepped the authority that is given to him in the Constitution, which in the Constitution, “the board shall appoint a general manager. The general manager shall be responsible to the board, for the administration. She is responsible to the board. She will carry out board instructions and the general manager shall be responsible for the appointment of staff.”
That is what a general manager is, honestly. There is some ambiguity that has been brought in the Association and this has now been used, apparently, to get rid of our chairman. There is a link to the AGM. This document here, which is a nomination form to become a director, or a board member. The clause there that says, “All nominations by serving councilors must be accompanied by a resolution of the members of council, for which the nominee is a delegate. The resolution must reflect that the delegate's nomination has been endorsed by the council they represent.”
That is not in the constitution, Mr chairman. You just can't introduce policy through the board that is non-
constitutional. So being introduced, it is ambiguous, but it doesn't stop yourself, Mr chairman, to hold the position. Your council, by stepping out of the Association, also does not stop you because you were actually endorsed at an AGM in October I believe. When did the council decide to pull out? Just the other week wasn't it? Last Tuesday?
Yes, Last Tuesday. You Mr. Chairman, are the chairman, so no one can call a meeting and get you thrown off. You would've had to call the meeting. Who called a meeting? Who ever called the meeting, I'm sure that they did it because the general manager came. The general managers on the administration. You have to call the meeting because you are the chairman. You would call a meeting if you wanted to sack yourself, I don't think you're that sort of person. The grief that this is caused by not following the Constitution … It was in the paper, “Unfortunately, councillor Toll has resigned because his council wouldn't endorse him” and all the shenanigans leading up to his having to resign, are totally unfounded.
I call for a motion of no confidence in our general manager and I call for a motion of no confidence in the current board that has thrown our chairman off unlawfully. I would suggest that Councillor Toll could pursue this issue because it's been done with.
I would like to move that motion of no-confidence in our general manager and our current board.
Greg Toll: Would someone like to second that please?
Geoff McKenzie: I’ll second that
Greg Toll: I'll now throw it open for conversation and for the comments. If anyone-
Jenny Johnson Is there anyone in this room at this moment who is savvy to all the procedural matters that are going on causing us to reach this point?
Rob Danieli: Can we ask the general manager to give her version of what led to this in fact?
Chief Executive Officer: Sure. Through you, Mr Chair.
A couple of points. Rob makes an accurate point. The MDA Constitution, written under NSW legislation refers to a General Manager. I am the general manager. The board has, since my appointment in Victoria approved the use of the title Chief Executive Officer. The role is generally known as Chief Executive Officer in Victorian regions. It's a matter of personal preference and I'm happy to be referred to as either general manager or CEO, that's fine.
Constitutionally the role of the GM is certainly to report to the board and act upon their instructions. In relation to the current circumstances, the resolution to declare the position of national president, as elected at Tocumwal, vacant was taken at an ordinary meeting. The date for that meeting was set at the previous ordinary meeting, and meeting 353 was held on the 20th November. That was an ordinary meeting.
In relation to the decision taken by the board to review the outcome of the election, that decision was taken based on the requirement that had been adopted by the board in August that all nominees to the position of executive who are councilors must be endorsed by the council which they represent.
The board discussed at length the intention and the motivation behind that policy at the last meeting, meeting 353 last Friday, the intention behind the development of that policy. It was very clearly to avoid situations, where individuals are conflicted in the representation of their positions on council. It was discussed that in region 10 they had a situation where councillor felt that his personal view wasn't consistent with one that was adopted by his counsel. He was not happy with that and he then sought to use the MDA as an alternate platform to articulate a personal view inconsistent with that of his council.
Similarly, region six had considered the matter on the same sort of basis and they also were of the view that it was important that providing certainty to member councils that their positions would be accurately represented
by the councillors who are on the MDA was important to them as well.
Region seven’s presentation of the material through their membership, brought to the table a very clear need to ensure that individual members can still nominate the position of regional executive. If they suitably, qualified, competent, capable, and adequately resourced and understand their role as individuals, there is no reason they should not be able to nominate. So it is not exclusionary but the board was of the view that it is important to provide certainty to member councils that the positions would be accurately represented.
That was the provenance of the policy as reflected in the minutes, and that was the provenance in the thinking of the board members that adopted that rule back in August. Unfortunately-
Rob Danieli: Unfortunately, that's unconstitutional-
Greg Toll: Emma, I’ll give you a few more minutes to finish off.
Chief Executive Officer : Under the Constitution, one of the requirements of the board is to provide and monitor good governance processes. That is item 7.1.2 in the Constitution, and it is a requirement and a duty of the board to deliver good governance processes.
Obviously not every circumstance or every policy can or should be articulated in the constitution. Policys are the instruments by which an organisation provides good governance.
The board is confident that they have delivered and developed policy in order to guide and direct the organization, and that they've done that consistent with the requirements of the Constitution.
The criteria for nomination is a matter of policy as adopted by the board, consistent with the process as required under the Constitution.
To wrap it up, the process was that the board revoked the outcome of the election held in Tocumwal.
There were many new board members at the meeting in Tocumwal. For some, it was their first time meeting each other. However, with skype and stronger communications they are getting a far more active level of engagement and understanding of their shared objectives, and policies.
At the meeting last Friday, the board opted to review its decision, and to affirm its earlier ruling, its policy.
The election of the national president took place in Tocumwal on the understanding that council would provide support to Greg as the nominee and quite fairly and reasonably, the board members had that understanding and so accepted the nomination being of the reasonable view that that would occur. Unfortunately, as we know, Greg’s council did not support his nomination to Chair region 2.
The board then had a situation where they were required to consider whether they were to affirm the earlier policy and adhere to it, or not. They applied the policy, called the position of National president vacant and resolved to hold a fresh election when all chairs are eligible to nominate.
If Greg is reelected to the chair at the regional level he is then entitled to nominate as an individual member to stand for an executive role at board level also.
Greg Toll: Now I’ll give you my opinion of what has happened. When they brought in this thing that you had to have the endorsement of the Council-
Rob Danieli: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Who brought in the policy rule?
Greg Toll: I'm just going to explain to you. It was held when, we had five in total. We have
ten board members, only five turned up to vote.
Rob Danieli: Who put the proposal forward, Mr Chairman?
Greg Toll: I did not put the motion forward.
Rob Danieli That is an unlawful motion because you're the only person who can put that motion forward. If it was the general manager, general manager has overstepped. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the general manager to put that forward, or any other board members. They can propose that you would have to be consulted as the chairman.
Greg Toll Well, I just want to say that after Barooga, there was a couple of challenging people come and say, ”Well, you didn't get endorsed by counsel.” I'm just going to read a paragraph which I sent back to him (??) to include in the meeting. They tried about three weeks ago to get rid of me, they called the meeting and it (a motion of no confidence) went five all. This is a board, the board did all meet and they voted. It went five all so the motion was lost. They immediately called another meeting, I had no say in it. They immediately called, I’ll ask the general manager to tell you who that is. I'll ask you who called it.
Chief Executive Officer The extraordinary meeting you are referring to Mr Chair was called by the chair of region 10, Murray Wood-
Rob Danieli You need two to call a meeting, I think.
Chief Executive Officer: Barry Featherstone, I think from memory but I'd have to check. I'll take that on notice. The subsequent meeting at which the matter of the election at Tocumwal was discussed, was an ordinary meeting.
Just for clarity, this seems to be some suggestion that I have a view on this one way or another. I would just like to confirm that that's absolutely not the case and that as the executive I can state quite clearly that my role is very clear. I would like to think that Greg and I have worked very well together over a long time and delivered some excellent outcomes for the organization. It has been a challenging couple of months for all.
Greg Toll: Before you go on Rob, I’d just like to finish what I was saying. I would just like to tell you what I told the board up there at Berooga. As you all know, I object to the wording of the sixth paragraph of item 3.1 of the draft briefing paper. As I pointed out to you yesterday, I do not recall saying that I would get endorsement of counsel. I do recall saying that I was hopeful of getting counsel endorsement, and yet the minutes of the board make no reference that I was hoping to get it. Accordingly it is incorrect for you state that my nomination is accepted on the basis that my nomination is going to be accepted by counsel as an endorsed person. I did not say that, I was hoping to get it and that's a situation that I'm in.
Rob Danieli: Mr. Chairman, to clarify the history of what happened. Is it true that the general manager came to your residence and demanded your resignation?
Greg Toll: No, she just came out and suggested that I should resign.
Rob Danieli: On what grounds would that be?
Greg Toll: That other people were aiming … Nobody was named. “A lot of people out there want to: Greg,” and that's the context.
Rob Danieli: What crime have you done, sir? What crime have you committed? At an annual meeting you were elected chairman of this organization, you can be elected as an individual if the bloody counsel didn't endorse you. What was wrong with the board accepting your position for the rest of the 12 months? What crime have you done?
Greg Toll: They are taking the course that I did say that I would get endorsement. I did not say I would get endorsement, I said I would try.
Rob Danieli: Mr. Chairman, I still don't know who brought the policy forward that you need to be endorsed by counsel. Who actually brought that suggestion up? Because that happened in June or July. Can you please tell me who actually moved that motion to have a policy rule put forward that you must be endorsed by counsel, because it is not in the Constitution?
Jeff Shand: Actually, just in relation to the comments over there, I think I can speak to that. In our council, when delegates are asked to stand for their positions, it is the Council of the day who endorse a delegate to stand on behalf of the Council. I imagine it is the same at your council. That's pretty straight forward, I don't understand what the problems is. It is the fellow councilors who endorse the delegate or not.
Rob Danieli: The problem is that at the AGM the board was told that he was endorsed, that he had been endorsed by council. He was duly elected-
Greg Toll: No. No. No. No, I was a private member. I was a private member for years.
Rob Danieli Who put the policy forward that you must be endorsed by council? It's not in the Constitution? Can a private member be the chair of the organization?
Greg Toll: The worst thing about it, it's being run by three people and I'm getting overruled. I'm just letting you know-
Jenny Johnson: Greg, for how many years have you been a private member?
Greg Toll: Probably three or four, the main reason the council had me endorsed for 14 years. I was the only person that went. Nobody else wanted to go. It's a personal thing that I told certain fellows, I think it was the worst Mayor I've ever worked under.
Geoff McKenzie: I just want to add here. Ian and Bill are both endorsed for Murray Shire council. Gen Campbell, she's here today; me- Jeff McKenzie, a private member and we represented ourselves as private members. That's been my thrust of the whole thing that private members are as important as any.
It cost me the $60 GST, or whatever, to be a member but this year the Council didn't pick up my costs for traveling back and forth each day. For every conference cost me about $2,500 to attend every conference, out of my own pocket. The importance of private members, that are not paid as a rule by the council, the council has an obligation to pay the expenses for any meeting or any … They are part of the MDA-
Ian Moon: Thank, Mr. Chairman. This raises another point. The Murray Shire was advised by the general manager, the CEO, of the Murray Darling Association, that we can only have one delegate. Now, Emma were you acting outside of your area to do that?
Chief Executive Officer Thank you Ian. Through you Mr Chair. Any advice that I provide to any Shire, including Murray, in relation to the number of delegates that they are entitled to has always been by email and it's been a verbatim cut-and-paste of the relevant provision within the Constitution.
I will have to take it on notice to check what advice specifically I had provided to Murray Shire but as I said any advice that I provide in relation to membership entitlements is invariably a cut-and-paste from the Constitution.
Ian Moon: Are you kind enough to send me a copy because previously we had two delegates to Murray Shire-
Des Bilske: Mr. Chair, I can actually answer that one fairly quickly, 6.8 of the Constitution says, “Each member of the local government in the municipality may appoint a delegate to the General Counsel of
the AGM, and local governments with populations over 20,000 may appoint additional delegates.” It went up to 20,000 and then over 20,000
Bernard Curtin: Thank you Mr. Chairman, and delegates I think there are some very very concerning things that are happening here today. Number one, we are going broke. And in the middle of going broke we are seeming to be acting conversely with the Constitution as is being pointed out to us. I was interested to know, in the extraordinary meeting you did say that there were five members, is that correct? What's the constitutional rule? Usually it's 50% plus one isn't it? At a meeting?
I would challenge whether you had arrived at a quorum to hold the meeting, let alone make any decisions and that, I'm listening to to Rob and he's of is the study this constitution very closely. The things that he's put before the meeting here this morning, I think the whole organization should have a real hard look at itself because we seem to be acting in a manner as the spirit moves us. Whether we have the document here that supposed to run this organization, and we just seem to be ignoring it on a number of occasions. From what I've learned just sitting around here, regarding the fact that one needed to be a counselor to be eligible to stand for chairman of this organization, that seems to be not constitutional at all. That's the general understanding here, people think that way and it's not right
I just think, were trying to solve a lot of problems here with this organization. We're not happy with the government's ruling on things, here we are sitting around here arguing about virtually personal matters. We've got a constitution here to follow, which we are ignoring. We've ignored it on more than one occasion from the different comments that have been made here today. If we don't look out with just going to destroy ourselves, don't worry about anyone else destroying us. We're going to do it ourselves and that's overlooking the fact that the alarming situation we have financially and the future we have there. We certainly are throwing that out the back door and were talking about matters here that I believe are not in the best interests of this Association.
Don Oberin: We, and I don't support character assassination with respect, that's why it been quiet until now.
Greg Toll: Now, you moved a motion, Rob?
Robert Danieli: Mr. Chairman, I'm still waiting on clarification. Who brought the policy rule forward?
Chief Executive Officer The policy was first discussed at an ordinary meeting of the Board in July. All the minutes of the meetings are on the website. The latest one not yet but it will be in the next couple of days.
It was first discussed at meeting 347, and it was off the back of a letter that we received from Frank Tuckwell, who was an apology to that meeting but was the chairman for region six.
That motion was “that it be resolved that all nominations to take the chair be accompanied by resolution of council as demonstrated in regions one and five.” It was proposed by Frank Tuckwell.
It was moved by Murray Wood, and seconded by Rodney Button. I can confirm that at that meeting there was three apologies one of whom was Frank himself. He had, however sent a letter, proposing the change.
The matter was then further considered and resolved in meeting 348 at which they were four apologies. There was still a quorum. The apologies were Oscar Aertssen R3, Judy Harris R4, Frank Tuckwell, R6, and Kevin Myers R5.
The wording was clarified, and at that meeting the item was resolved. The motion was moved Peter Jamieson and David Thurley.
Rob Danieli Madam general manager, I think you need to read the original thing. The first
meeting again, read that out.
Chief Executive Officer Do you want the entire motion? It actually relates to the issue being dealt with at region six. Okay. The motion reads That the board a) Endorse the action taken today in relation with the suspension of a region six member from the position of secretary in region six. (That had come about because of a fairly challenging communication that had come out from region six under the MDA banner and letterhead that wasn't consistent with the values of the organization. b) Write to that member noting their disappointment in the views expressed in the attachment of his email of Saturday, 16th May distancing themselves from the views expressed in that document and relieving Mr. ___ of his position as secretary of region six as a consequence of that email. c) Advising the administrative support of region six will be provided by the council of the chair consistent with other regions. d) Acknowledge that that member may apply for membership of the organization at a later date, - which I can tell you he subsequently has an has been accepted as a member. And e) resolve that all nominations to take the chair be accompanied by resolution of counsel by demonstrated in regions one and five.” The subsequent one-
Rob Danieli That's the important clause. Does everyone understand that a private member can be chairman? It's got nothing to do with that notion, it's a ridiculous notion. Anyone can be chairman, it is not up to counsel to endorse who is the chairman, that they can choose who they nominate as the delegates and then they can subsequently be nominated as chairs.
That is a false statement. It's not in the Constitution. It's unconstitutional.
Mr. Chairman, you are still the chairman of this Association, okay? Under the Constitution, they had acted inappropriately. Whoever endorsed that is acting out of the Constitution. It is unlawful, you are still the chair.
Greg Toll Well, would you like to move a motion?
Rob Danieli I have moved to make a motion of no confidence, but whether we want to proceed with this I'm not sure. Whether it is inexperience, or whether it is spite, or whether it is something else, I'm not sure where it all comes from. I'm certainly not happy with you being taken off unlawfully. Something has to be done to put you back on because you are lawfully the chairman.
Jenny Johnson Well, shouldn’t we be moving a motion that this matter should be considered by the Board?
Rob Danieli Well, no. because the board is not true, the board needs to be dismissed because they have acted inappropriately.
Peter Connell Shouldn't you be moving a motion to that then? Why are you shooting the messenger? You are. If you've got a problem with the board, take it to the board.
Rob Danieli: Let's go back to the board. I move a motion of no confidence in our general manager, and the current board, because they have acted beyond the powers and beyond the Constitution. That was my motion.
Greg Toll That was seconded by Jeff McKenzie.
Ruth McRae Doesn't the general manager only do as is directed by the board? If the board …
Are we, talking about shooting the messenger, we have to be really careful. I actually firmly believe this group has credibility, and it is the voice of the people. I don’t want for her –
Rob Danieli Can you modify my motion, then?
Ruth McRae How? No, I am happy for you to modify it.
Robert Danieli If our GM has not acted outside her authority, which we are starting to understand, it's other people. The motion is now changed, we have a motion of no confidence in the current board because they have acted outside of the Constitution. Especially in any documentation, the theory of nomination is not constitutional and Greg Toll should still be the chairman. My motion is to move a motion of no confidence in the current board.
Don Oberin I would support that but I wouldn't support no-confidence in this lady here. This lady has been so keen and so concerned for the future of this organisation. She's had to do a lot of thinking for some of the board members. Now she's got a future on the line. We are not moving no-confidence against this lady.
Rob Danieli My motion is a motion of no confidence in the board because they have acted outside the Constitution, they have used documentation that is ambiguous and is irrelevant to voting rights. They, I'm not sure what they should do, should they stand down? The duly elected chairman elected by the AGM should be reinstated as the chair, forthwith.
Greg Toll: I'm sorry this is going on so long, but it has been quite unpleasant for the last few weeks. One day I had 25, 30 emails from two people.
Des Biske One comment. We need to think about when we're actually voting on this matter. The board themselves have under the Constitution to manage the affairs of the Association in between general meetings.
They have fairly broad powers as a board in between the meetings. Legally that's a catchall, they can take action on lots of things quite clearly under that Constitution. That's something we need to keep in the back of our minds, as we are considering which way we might vote on this.
Viv McGee Nobody would dispute that, Des - I believe Mr. Chairman. The point being on such an important matter no responsible board would do what they did.
Ken Pattison You won’t have to worry about in three months – the organisation is running out of money. You're going to fracture this organization right now. Greg is the first person in my involvement with this organization where we actually getting some traction and representation on what is occurring out there with our communities in southern Murray Shire [sic] basin. We are getting three suicides a day Gold Murray Water's district. It just goes on and on out there in our communities and it's all to do with water.
Greg Toll I'll get Emma to read this motion out please, and will all vote on it.
(Crosstalk. Louise Burge suggests the wording for the motion)
Motion: That region two a) has no confidence in the board of the MDA in relation to the decision taken at board meeting 353 because the board has acted outside of the Constitution and used documentation there was ambiguous and irrelevant to voting rights, and. b) Believes that under the Constitution Greg Toll was duly elected at the AGM of the Board and should be reinstated to the Chair.
R Danieli/G McKenzie Carried
Geoff McKenzie Just before you go on Greg, I've got a concern. I'll just read this letter that I write to you on 13 July, “Dear Mr. Toll, we wish to have a meeting with the MDA board as soon as possible to express our concern regarding the CEO miss Emma Bradbury and the handling of a serious complaint we have regarding the potential health and environmental disaster, that threatens not only our people, but the contamination of the Murray River. Private members of these associations have expressed a level of confidentiality and an investigation into the potential environmental and ecological impending disaster regarding Murray River and our downstream communities regarding this unsafe facility. Signed yours, Jeff McKenzie. 13th of July, Genevieve Campbell with phone numbers, reply back from the Murray Darling Association counselor Jeff McKenzie, counselor Genevieve Campbell.”
We didn't call ourselves out as councillors in this case I'd like to point out. “Dear Councillors McKenzie and Councillor Campbell, thank you for your letter. Your letter has been noted by the board. The Murray Darling Association has forwarded some inquiries regarding the management of the waste facilities and maritime services to a responsible authority and will be seeking confirmation from the Murray Shaw for the safe management of the waste facility with which you have raised a concern. Kind regards, Greg Peltz.” I want to read on further to that.
This facility is 22,000 L, or potentially 22,000 L, and a plastic rain tank sitting on the base of the Murray River, within a meter of the Murray River, with a raw ethyl pumping out of our space into it. There's a photo here on our iPad that everyone's welcome to look at. I did take Greg and Jen Campbell. Jen and Greg drove out to look at the facility, and it was a concern. It has become a concern that's now overlooked but it came into a huge fight in counsel and an investigation and all sort of things. I want to read out a statement from the complainant.
'I had lunch today with the CEO the Murray Darling Association, MDA, Emma Bradbury. I had not seen Emma for some time, and she told me during our lunch, that councillors McKenzie and Campbell at some time in the past couple of months intended to engage the MDA in the issue of sewage tanks on the banks of the Murray. The MDA president Mr. Greg Toll, apparently went out to deep Creek with them and took photos. He then asked Emma to write to the rows and maritime services news outlets to inquire about the sewage tanks. Obviously this went no further than any other opening that councillor McKenzie went down in pursuit of this matter.
I'm not taking complaint about bringing this problem. I do still see it is a serious problem, 22,000 L of overall you know what's sitting in a plastic rain water tank. What I take offense to is my confidentiality being resell than a lunch agreement, a lunchtime arrangement, by our CEO, to the complainant. Actually they operate of that facility, and tell them where I'm coming from, and implicated Jean Campbell. My concern is for the health of the Murray River. Just soon after that very disaster in China, 22,000 L into the Murray River would have compromised the health and communities from Moama to the Goolwa Mouth. I'm just saying that I just want to hear what Emma has to say about breaching my confidentiality.-
Jeff Shand Can I just ask one question before you go on? Was the development application approved by Council in the first place?
Geoff McKenzie Never been EPA approved, never even had a development application-
Jeff Shand Then why wouldn't council ask for it to be removed?
Geoff McKenzie Don't go there. Don't go there. Do not go there. Don’t go down that path. Do not go there.
Jenny Johnson Mr Chair, It's not the role of the MDA as we sit here today, to sort out Murray Shire's problems-
Geoff McKenzie I don't think it's a Shire problem, it's a total disaster to everyone.
Jeff Shand Geoff. Clearly this is a Shire problem. A DA has not been lodged. As a councillor,
go back and sort it out.
Geoff McKenzie Don't talk to me about it. What I'm saying is I do not need my confidentiality, in sorting a problem, interfered with by the MDA CEO, talking to the operator over a luncheon agreement. Have lunch with whoever you like, but that is breaching my confidentiality. I took it to the board at Barooga, and they said take it to your regional meeting.
Greg Toll So, it has been brought here today. Emma, would you like to give a response.
Chief Executive Officer Very briefly. The issue was before the Murray Shire council at the time. Greg had raised it publicly with the Campaspe Council and the Murray Regional Tourism Board. There was no breach of confidentiality, and the board were of that view also when they considered Geoff and Jen’s letter.
Ian Moon Mr. Chairman, there's just one point, just for the benefit of the people here. The Council, the Murray Shire Council is facing a $500-$600,000 fine that was never approved by the EPA. The process of having it move now. The point is if you haven't got the numbers in your council to move a motion, why can't you go to the MDA who are about the environment and bring the issue up in confidence.
Greg Toll That's where I took it and I did take it to the powers that be, and that's the response now. I hope that we get it all cleaned up.
I'll now move on to the AGM, and I'm just going to ask our two Mayors here, Ashley Hall and Bernard, they are two persons standing to be our scruitineers. I'll ask Emma to read out who the nominations are and then we will vote.
Chief Executive Officer Thank you Mr. Chair. We do have two nominations here today for the position of chair of region two.
As you'll be aware that Chair of a region is by extension than a board member with all responsibilities and obligations that that also entails.
We have Greg who is the incumbent and he's standing in his capacity as an individual member and that is consistent with the current rules and constitutional requirements of the organization.
We have a nomination from Des Bilski, GM of the Deniliquin Council.
Council representatives and delegates are entitled to vote. I have a voting register which you will be checked off on and a ballot paper which you will be given individual members of region two are eligible to vote and so we can also have the list of current eligible members of region two and board members.
Both nominees are prepared to stand up and provide a brief presentation to the region. With so many people who may not have been familiar with either of our nominees, that's a great opportunity to hear what they have to say.
Greg Toll I'll go first and then Bernard [sic], seeing as I'm the incumbent. I'm one of the few farmers presently on the board. I'm semi-retired and will be able to give it a lot of time. As you might know might not know, councils take up a lot of time but mind you trying to keep out of the Murray Darling Association is very worrying too. I'm very worried about our farmers in region two and three, as we've just heard there are some pretty disturbing figures getting out.
There's been nothing but complaints about the allocation of water, the availability of water, and also the cost of it. One thing I will say in the last two or three years each board member has a different idea on how they would like to handle water in their regions.
It's very hard to make sure that when you are an efficient chairman, to represent a whole lot is very very
awkward. It's probably getting very close to where we need an independent chairman to run another board. I do have very good contacts in both state and federal offices. And that's I offer myself as a Chairman.
Des Bilske Thanks Greg. Members of region two, I'm only recently back into region two. I've spent quite a fair amount of time in region three and in region eight and in region four.
I've actually worked in those areas. I've had 12 years as a general manager, chief executive officer. Working around Broken Hill and I've also been the general manager and natural resource manager for South Australia's heavy metal from what was previous catchment management boards and sort of conservation boards and natural resources management board.
I have in excess of 20 years experience of senior management level inside of government. Mainly in South Australia but also a little bit of experience in Tasmania, so I've tended to have a fairly broad background.
I come from a farming background as a kid. I used to milk cows by hand. I had an internship in South Australia it was a dry land area. So it's bloody hard work as you go through the process. I've come from that and I've currently qualifications as a bachelor of business. I've got post tertiary qualifications in commercial and finance and accounting. I'm also a graduate of the Australian Institute of company directors. I have a little bit of experience in boards.
My experience in bringing organizations back from the brink of financial toughness, I suppose, is best demonstrated when I came here four and a half years ago.
We was struggling very significantly financially and I think now I can say we are in a position where we have nearly 19 ½, sorry, 18 ½ million dollars in our investments. We've come back financially into very strong position. Just offering up as an opportunity. I know it's going to be bloody hard work, because it's not only region two, it is region three and it's also of the Association. We've got to pick up and shake around a little bit get it back on track. Fulfilling the role it's supposed to fulfill and actually had for the outcomes for all the communities , right across the whole of the basin. Thank you, thanks.
The vote was then taken.
Louise Burge Just before you get into business, I did want to raise one issue. I don't know when can I … Can I raise that issue right now?
I really just wanted to get the conversation going about the Association and realize that there's a problem happening at the moment with the decisions of the New South Wales government in relation to the SDA, standard diversion adjustment, for these projects, and the rule changes. The legal deadlines that have been imposed upon New South Wales, are unrealistic and difficult for New South Wales government to achieve, if it means … They just physically can't achieve the deadlines for project decisions and allow consultation at the same time.
The first stage of the decision is November and then the second part of the decision is in June next year. I was wondering if the Murray Darling Association could consider drafting a letter to New South Wales government expressing concern about the time frames and asking for an extended time frame to allow for better decision- making in these cases and rule changes. I'll read out one example of, does everyone know what I mean when I talk about standard diversion adjustments for the projects? They were to achieve the differences between held entitlements and the 2750 under the basin plan. Under one paragraph of the New South Wales irrigated councils mission to the New South Wales government in May.
“In regards to the rule changes which are also a prerequisite part of the meetings, should the proposed PPM's be implemented in the current forms, it could jeopardize the access to and the reliability of water this May. There is a number of reasons why for example, one, this is because the authority of the proposed PPM rule changes, the implementation of the consideration will lead to the socialization process, or change the current rules of held environmental watering practices.”
It's also said in this conflict, New South Wales refused and the irrigation society has based their modeling for sustainable diversions, on incorrect assumptions. By the end of May, it will lead to a decline in water New South Wales. We need some new policy measures to implement to New South Wales. What were facing with these regions is not only is water being taken out of production, has bought or required for efficiency programs, we also going to reduce reliability in that the rule changes will also be a mechanism of requiring water for the basin plan. Political decisions oppose on the states are unrealistic, and now the states are scrambling to fund these projects or rule changes.
The agencies are going through a restructuring themselves, the entire industry and is simply going to be no time to do this simply and efficiently whether the state government is aware but their hands are bound.
Motion: That Region 2 contact the New South Wales government, and the federal government, seeking an extension of the time frame for the development of the SDL projects.
We're not asking to be involved in the projects but which is saying the timeframe is being proposed to the political process is going to lead to mistakes and no consultation.
Greg Toll Can you put the issue into layman’s terms for Don and I?
Louise Burge Under the basin plan there is a figure of 27,50. That will be achieved by entitlements, by buying entitlements, or water achieved under efficiency programs like, on farm efficiencies on file. The difference between those two figures was 652 L, that was to be achieved under environmental equipment projects. Environmental equipment or rule changes but the political time frames in making those decisions was so short, that everything's been rushed not thought through properly. There's no time for consultation and so decisions are going to be bang, bang, bang, bang.
Somebody's going to meet that target box, to get the percentage out of 650, and it's been as irrigated councils say, don't plan for reliability. Not only is this district using entitlements, it may well lose reliability of those entitlements.
Motion: That the MDA adopt and develop an advocacy priority, and write to New South Wales, Victoria and federal government, and Minister for Water, seeking an extension of time frames for the development of SDL business cases and rule changes.
L Burge/John Zobec Carried
7. AGM 7.1. Election of Regional Executive
Greg Toll Thank you. Now, the vote. Emma, can you please read out the results of the election.
Chief Executive Officer – The result of the vote. Mr. Greg Toll 14, Mr. Des Bilske, 8. Greg has retained the chair. Congratulations Greg.
Greg Toll Thank you it's very enlightening to know that the somebody supports me. I put a lot of bloody work into the situation of the last couple of years.
I will ask that Des accept the job of vice president. There's only one nomination for vice president. So will you accept this position, Des?
Des Bilsle I accept.
8. GUEST PRESENTATION Lyndal Humphris, Dairy Farmer - Tongala “Accelerating Change Project” – using innovation to reduce on-farm water consumption
Greg Toll Lyndal is a dairy farmer from Tongala, she's very innovative. Whatever happens over the next three years, we've got to use water a little bit wiser. Linda can make a liter of water do what you would take 10 to do.
Lyndal Humphris Thanks Greg. As Greg said my name is Lindell Humphreys, I'm a tiny dairy farmer from Tongala. A bit of background about dairy business we have hundred and 52's, we have 260mega liters of water share. We milk 350 spring calving cows and we have a crossbred heard. Our farm is fully laid out and developed. It is a gravity fed system and it’s a fully recycled system as well. How we operate the business, my husband and I, we've been dairy farming for eight years. Prior to that we had a clinic and my husband's background is a dairy supplier prior to that….
Lyndal’s presentation can be read in it’s entirety on the R2 web page.
9. NEXT MEETING: 11 March 2016
10. CLOSE 1.45pm
The Murray Darling Association acknowledges and thanks Deniliquin Council for their support in hosting this AGM and Ordinary meeting of Region 2.