There, I thought that’d get someone’s attention.

What’s this crazy guy talking about?

Why would the newly elected Mayor of Cairns Regional Council, with a mandate for greener and more humane policies, risk the health of the Cairns population by giving them potentially toxic water to drink?

I hope she won’t, and that’s good news for Kuranda.

It would mean that at long last, someone in government may test the Barron River for pesticides and other toxic chemicals – and make the data public.

I’ll explain. On commercial talkback radio last week, several days after her election, the new Mayor was asked a question about expanding Cairns’ water supply.

In her reply, Val Schier enthused about proposals to divert some of the Barron River flow – presumably from the lower Barron – for use in Cairns.

I wonder if she has ever inquired what is poured into the Barron catchment, year in, year out, by the tablelands farming community? I wonder if she has any handle on rumours of toxic leaching from Mareeba landfills?

I wonder if Val Schier – like Friends of the Earth Kuranda – has ever asked State Government representatives detailed questions about Barron River water quality. FoE Kuranda was fobbed off with evasive waffle. How did she go?

Without real data on this, Mayor Schier is very unwise to pledge Barron water to her thirsty residents.

On the other hand, WITH real data, users of the lower catchment can apply – if necessary – real pressure on the upper and especially the catchment river ‘users’ to clean up their act.

Will it be necessary to detoxify the Barron by implementing significantly different agricultural, waste management and sewerage practices upstream of Kuranda?

Without any real data on the pesticide or heavy metal content of Barron river water, who on earth knows?

Let’s hope Val Schier will find out – and make the data public, ASAP.

Of course, if the plan is to filter out all nasties before they enter the water supply of Cairns, the public needs real information about that too.

Perhaps Cairns can secure a safely filtered town water supply from the much-abused Barron? Apparently Kuranda does so at present – although who can be sure about that?

Even so, questions about water quality will persist until we get honest and comprehensive answers. Is biological concentration occuring? If so, are fish in the middle Barron safe to eat? They seem to be a significant part of the local diet, especially for Aboriginal people in the Myola valley.

Are we still poisoning the indigenous people of this land?

Over to you, Val. You should now have ready access to information the State Government doesn’t seem keen to obtain or release.

Do us all a favour – coast dwellers and tablelanders both.

Let’s have the facts!

It’s two days since I postponed an earlier attempt to write the second and final part of my article about the Tablelands Regional Council Mayoral contest. Part One is here.

I’m glad I waited. It has helped me to make up my mind on the detail. That’s an indication of the complexity of the Tablelands election. Unlike the lowland choice for Mayor, which in my not-so-humble opinion is a complete no-brainer, it’s hard work sorting out the pros and cons of the five candidates for Mayor of the Tablelands Regional Council.

Elections are brutal. As the moment of casting a ballot grows closer, each voter is forced to make a choice. There may well be a piece of the divinity in everyone, but elections don’t work if we vote equal first for everyone. Elections are competitive. There must be winners and losers.

I’ve now spoken in person to all the tablelands Mayoral candidates. In the case of Peter Hodge, it was an extremely brief exchange, because I called him late in the day – and I owe him an apology for not calling back the next day as promised. He may well feel aggrieved about that. But having decided to weigh into this topic, choice is necessary, and time has run out. Polling day is Saturday March 15th, ready or not.

So here goes…

My fifth and least favoured candidate is Jo Moro.

Jo has been a member of Mareeba Shire Council for the last eight years. To my knowledge, he has not expressed serious dissent about decisions taken by that Council or criticised the overall style of Council decision-making. Alone of the candidates, he failed to submit a questionnaire response to Friends of the Earth Kuranda. I know of no significant redeeming features that counter-balance these negatives. In my choice for Mayor, therefore, Jo Moro comes last.

I want to add that I spoke with Jo Moro after the Malanda meeting for the first time – and found him rather good fun. I like him as a person. And it turns out Jo lives at Biboohra within Division 8. So I have an extra reason for being upbeat about Jo, because I’d like his vote – or at least his second preference. Such is politics.

Actually, I find all the tablelands candidates for Mayor are likeable But this is an election, not the selection process for a rock and roll band. We don’t need five stars. Ultimately, there can be only one. For that reason, voters must eliminate. Sorry Jo.

Who to eliminate next?

I’ve already said, in my final election leaflet, that my two most favoured candidates for Mayor are Joe Paronella and Tom Gilmore.

That means third and fourth position, for me, go to Geoff Stocker and Peter Hodge. It was a hard call working out who to put third and who should be fourth. But I’ve decided to put Geoff Stocker number four and Peter Hodge slightly higher at number three. Here’s why…

Dr Stocker is a scientist and successful farmer. He’s clearly an intelligent man. But intelligence alone is not enough for the Mayoral role. What’s more, too much cleverness can be a disadvantage. We voters up here on the tablelands, whether we usually vote Green, One Nation or somewhere in between, may appear to be hippies or hill-billies, but we’re not quite as silly as we look.

Stocker is trading preferences with Jo Moro. Each one of these candidates is therefore trying to give the other a leg up – if they themselves don’t get in. For me, on the greener side of politics, that’s a worry.

It’s also of concern to me that while Stocker hints strongly that is he an environmentalist at heart, he also seems to be touting for the extreme anti-green vote. This week the Tablelands Advertiser ran an “I urge you to vote for Geoff Stocker” advertisement, presumably with Geoff Stocker’s agreement. The ad was a personal appeal on behalf of Stocker, written by Federal MP Bob Katter. It included choice Katterisms such as “Affordable progress – you know your jungles won’t be damaged by developers. You know jobs will be created for your kids.” Hmmm. That set off my crap detector How about yours?

Peter Hodge is my third choice for Mayor.

He may well feel that I haven’t given his candidacy a fair go. I didn’t take the trouble to chase him up twice and speak in person to him at length. I acknowledge that’s a weakness in this analysis.

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to do all the things I’d like to do (I’m sure it’s the same for Mr Hodge – and that may be why he didn’t chase me up himself). But I have read his material and seen his replies to questionnaires. And after all, no-one said I had to do a perfect job in this evaluation. It’s not my job at all, actually. And you – the reader – are perfectly entitled to disregard every word I write.

Peter Hodge strikes me as a decent and intelligent man with an idea – based on considerable practical experience working in local government – of the complexity of the amalgamation process . He has a check-list for achieving it. But does he have a real plan for making the new Council work – and does he have the personality and people-skills to pull together the Councillors, get the best out of the team and lead the whole Council forward towards a better future?

If he does, he’s been rather quiet about it, in my opinion. It’s not obvious to me. Part of the task of candidates is to sell their capabilities. I don’t feel Peter Hodge has done that, not to my satisfaction.

One of my conservationist friends from the Atherton area, whom I met after the Malanda meeting, had good things to say about Peter Hodge. He’s going to vote Hodge – 1.

Apparently, Peter Hodge was more sympathetic to recent local concerns over saving trees and public space in Atherton than Joe Paronella, for example. It’s not an issue I’ve studied personally, so I won’t comment further, but it’s worth noting.

Also to Hodge’s credit, judging by his answers to the CAFNEC questionnaire and the Friends of the Earth Kuranda questionnaire, he asks good questions about major development proposals such as Myola and the Kuranda Range 4-Lane Highway proposal. Some of his answers, to my taste, are better than the responses of candidates I intend to put higher up in my vote.

But experience counts for something when choosing a Mayor. Hodge doesn’t have a track record of elected office. If he was very charismatic and clearly able to make up for lack of Councillor experience in other ways, or if he had simply excellent policies, I might have overlooked that and followed the advice of my Atherton friend. But in my opinion, Hodge isn’t and he doesn’t. So I’ll put him number three on the ballot paper and not higher than that.

That leaves two candidates, Joe Paronella and Tom Gilmore.

I’ve had a lot of trouble getting clear in my own mind which of these two I prefer for the top job. But as it’s time to make a decision, I’m going to vote Paronella 1, Gilmore 2. I’ll try to explain why.

Both of these men, in my opinion, are charming yet potentially tough. Both seem to have the personality and skills for the job. I feel excited about the prospect of working with either of them.

Gilmore has a lot more political experience. He was a State MP and Minister for several years. He’s also served on Mareeba Shire Council and in 2004 ran against Mick Borzi for Mayor. (Gilmore lost, more’s the pity!)

Paronella is a Councillor on Atherton Shire Council. He has a long and successful background in business and community work, but his political track record, measured in years, doesn’t compare to Gilmore’s.

On the other hand, Joe Paronella has some attractive compensating factors. He has a campaign website (so does Geoff Stocker, but to my knowledge, Gilmore doesn’t). Of course, Gilmore doesn’t need to have a website. It’s up to him. But in 2008, it’s a good idea. Paronella has seized that opportunity, despite the difficulties. Good on him.

Paronella and Gilmore both seem attentive to the interests and concerns of Division 8. Because of his background on Mareeba Shire, Gilmore undoubtedly knows the area better. But Paronella has shown great enthusiasm to learn more. Both Paronella and Gilmore took the trouble to visit Speewah market last weekend and press the flesh, but Paronella, alone of the Mayoral candidates, attended the Kuranda Envirocare AGM and Division 8 candidates’ debate on Wednesday evening.

His decency on that occasion shone through. He was keen to meet people, but sought no time at the podium and was willing to sit, observe and be silent throughout the meeting. That’s unusual for an aspiring politician, in my experience.

Some of Gilmore’s political track record travels with him like a lead weight – at least for green-leaning voters. He was a junior Minister in Queensland’s National Party Government at the time of the Wet Tropics World Heritage declaration. His task then was to oppose the World Heritage nomination. He may not have been the author of this policy, but he didn’t say no, either. These days, Tom Gilmore sits on the Wet Tropics Management Authority Board. Such is the way of the world. Greenies get muddy, broke and arrested. ‘The Boys’ obtain sinecures resulting from their efforts. So it goes.

But joking apart, I think it’s a very good thing that Tom Gilmore – and others like him – have moved as far as they have on environmental issues. It shows they are mentally flexible and able to recognize and adapt to change. Tom gets teased for his anti-World Heritage stance way back in the 1980s, but who wouldn’t be embarrassed to go through all the policies they supported at that time (assuming they were out of short pants). People have a right to change their minds in the light of new information and more thought. For good political eaders, flexibility is a duty and the electorate’s well-being depends on it. Who wants to follow a dogmatist over a cliff face?

Gilmore and Paronella have very different proposals about how the new Council should be run. Gilmore has developed an elaborate and well-thought out committee structure. Paronella prefers the more conventional Council model, with all business coming before all Councillors. Gilmore believes that’s unworkable and I tend to agree. Paronella counters by proposing weekly Council meetings.

I rather feel that somewhere in the middle of their two models is what will be needed. That is, Council will need some committees, but not necessarily the full suite of eight proposed by Gilmore, with each Councillor assigned a quasi-Ministerial role. A lot depends on who the new Councillors are. We won’t know that until tomorrow evening. However, I have little doubt that both of these savvy and pragmatic politicians would adjust their models to reality and necessity – rather than attempt the opposite. So although I initially thought the differing models for Council would be a decisive factors for me in making a choice, I feel that less and less.

Some of my fellow-environmentalist friends complain that there are no really ‘green’ Mayoral candidates running. They wince at any of my suggestions. All the candidates, they say, are different flavours of National Party.

They may well be right, but I’ve developed a standard reply to this complaint. Why didn’t YOU run? That usually ends the conversation. It’s one thing to whinge. It’s another to stick your own hand up.

The Tablelands, in my opinion, isn’t quite ready for a Mayor of the type these friends of mine would like to see. At this election, the electorate wouldn’t vote such a candidate in, even if it had the choice. A strong ‘green-leaning’ candidate might well attract a lot of votes, but we need winners and we need results. People, such as myself, who’d like to move politics in that direction have work to do. In the Tablelands, we’re not (yet) ready for the top job.

We are fortunate that we have at least two candidates who show every indication that they can bring all sides of important debates together and oversee rational dialogue between competing views and interests. What’s more, if last week’s Tablelands Advertiser opinion poll can be believed, these two candidates are the front runners.

According to the Advertiser, Gilmore is ahead on 36% of the primary vote, while Paronella is second with 21%. The other candidates – Stocker, Moro and Hodge – attract 20%, 12% and 11% support in that order.

IF these figures are remotely accurate, the election will probably be determined on preferences.

In my opinion, tablelanders who follow my voting advice maximise bnthye prospect that they’ll have a much more fair-minded and enlightened Mayor than the man who looks set to retain the position in Cairns, if a recent Cairns Post opinion poll is to be believed on that important local election.

It’s just one more reason why, in my opinion, the Tablelands is the best place to be.

We not only have a lower risk of tidal waves. We also have a choice of five Mayoral candidates who(with more or less reluctance) accept that climate change is a key issue that must be given policy priority.

What is wrong with the lowlanders?

I put it down to excessive heat – and I can suggest a remedy.

They should come up to Kuranda more often and chill out, preferably, on a cruisy new state-of-the-art railway. And as many swamp-dwellers appear to have more money than sense, I suggest they deposit lots and lots of it in the cash registers of our cafes, shops and market stalls.

We could do with the business.

On Tuesday evening, March 11th 2008, I attended a debate in Malanda between candidates for Mayor – and for Divisions 3 and 4 – of the Tablelands Regional Council.

It was a fascinating experience. My main interest – and reason for making the round trip to the southern Tablelands – was to observe the Mayoral candidates in action. I’d been unable to attend a previous debate hosted by the Cairns and Far North Environment Centre. This was a second chance.

But it was also fascinating to observe the other candidates for Council pitch for votes. I now have a better insight into some of the others people who may sit around the same table, if I’m fortunate enough to be elected Councillor for Division 8 this coming Saturday.

Like other events I’ve observed during this election campaign on the Tablelands, ‘debate’ was dignified, friendly – and quite unlike the drama of Parliament. This is a contest without rancour, very different also from the battle for control of the new Cairns Regional Council. Down the hill, gloves are most definitely off. We Tablelanders seem to be a nicer, kinder breed.

As well as listening to the contestants give brief set-piece speeches – and hearing their responses to a few questions from the floor – I had a chance to chat afterwards with other observers. I listened with interest to their opinions about the different candidates. Unlike me and my companions, most of the folk attending were from the southern shires. They’ve known the southern Mayoral candidates – Geoff Stocker, Peter Hodge and Joe Paronella – personally and for some time. This made their opinions even more valuable to me.

The other two candidates – Jo Moro and Tom Gilmore – are from Mareeba Shire. In terms of population and budget, Mareeba Shire is almost equivalent to the other three Shires put together. This is not an amalgamation of equals. Mareeba Shire is the biggest partner by far. One might think that would give a natural advantage to candiates from the Mareeba area. Perhaps it will. We’ll know better in less than 100 hours time.

The voting system in the contest for Mayor – like the voting system in Division 8 – will be be optional preferential. That means voters can number more than one box – but they don’t have to do so. Many voters will just vote 1. If so, unless their favoured candidate wins, their vote will ultimately not count towards the total of the victorious candidate.

On the other hand, those voters who choose to cast preference votes (eg. Mr A – 1; Ms b – 2; Dr C – 3; Mrs D – 4) may find that even though their first choice (Mr X) doesn’t make it, their second, third or even fourth choice does. In that case, their preferential vote counts towards the winers’ total – even though they didn’t pick the winner with their number 1 vote.

This is a great voting system – much better than first past the post as used in US or British elections. It means a voter can give first preference to a first choice – without the dilemma that candidate may not be electable and the vote will end up ‘wasted’. Casting a full set of preferences means a vote cannot be wasted. It will eventually rest with either the winner or the runner up. That’s because, when votes are counted, preferences are ‘distributed’.

In the case of the tablelands Mayoral contest, five candidates are competing for the one Mayoral position. It is possible – although unlikely – that one of these five will obtain more than 50% 0f the first preference vote. If so, they win then election – without any need to distribute preferences.

If that doesn’t happen, the system works like this. The candidate who scores the lowest primary vote is eliminated. His/her second vote is then distributed accordin to the the second preference cast (in the case above, with Mr A eliminated, the vote transfers to Ms B).

If that distribution of prerences isn’t sufficient to carry a candidate over the 50%+1 mark, the next lowest candidate is elimated and his/her preferences distributed. Elimination from the bottom carries on until a clear winner emerges.

I propose to adopt a similar approach in my article. I’ll eliminate from the bottom – and tell you in the end who I’m going to vote for – and in which order.

Of course, all I’m talking about here is what I – as one member of this large electorate – intend to do with my vote. If you are a voter in the Tablelands Regional Council area, you will need to make your own choice.

I’m going through this exercise of writing about the Mayoral candidates, their strengths and weaknessses as I see them and how I’ll mark my ballot paper on Saturday – simply becaiuse I’ve been asked often who I intend to support for Mayor. People are interested – but most have little time to study the options. I can’t pretend to have done that either in an extremeply thorough way – but I have put some thought into the Mayoral contest. If you are interested in what I think, read on.

But before that, I must sleep. It’s already nearly 2am, Wednesday morning. Today/tomorrow I go out doorkknocking – then there’s the Division 8 candidates debate in the evening. I need to be fresh. So my little saga about the Mayoral candidates – and who I intend to support – will have to wait a little longer.

Watch this space, as the saying goes.

Alternatively, you may well prefer to follow the advice of the Buddha, who reportedly said on his deathbed “work out your own salavation with diligence!”

Voting is YOUR choice. That’s the great thing about it.

That’s what makes it democracy.

In early February I examined the Mareeba Shire Councillors’ Register of Interests and discovered that Mayor Borzi owns EIGHT blocks in Kuranda.

Those register entries are no longer current. As of Tuesday 18th February, the Mayor owns TWELVE blocks in the Kuranda area.

One of the these blocks is in the Myola Zone.

This is the block of land that has been in the media recently. It is the block about which I claimed the Mayor had an undeclared conflict of interest during the closed Special Meeting of January 29th 2008, which approved the Myola Plan with the Mr Borzi in the Chair.

The Mayor’s Myola block is not only inside the Myola Zone. It is at the gateway to the proposed new suburb. A valuable property indeed, one imagines, if 10,000+ people move into the Myola valley.

Where are Mr Borzi’s other Kuranda blocks? I now know the answer to that question.

Here’s the map, as at early February:

Three of Mayor’s blocks on the Kuranda side of the Kennedy Highway are shown in grey; the other four in purple.

A few comments may be useful for those who don’t know Kuranda.

Taken as a whole, these seven blocks form a crucial buffer of forest between the Kennedy Highway and the village. Without intact forest on this land, I believe Kuranda would find it hard to continue portraying itself as the “Village in the Rainforest”. Instead, it would be apparent to all who arrive by road that Kuranda has become just another suburb.

The largest, Highway-side block would undoubtedly be bitumenized by road widening and the complex interchange planned as an integral part of the 4-Lane Highway proposal.

That’s if the Highway goes ahead.

The Mayor, a long-time Highway supporter, has expressed irritation with the State Government for recently casting doubt over this.

The Mayor’s blocks on Morton Street are contiguous to the largest Highway-side block. These smaller blocks, I’m told, are zoned ‘Village’. That means they can be developed for housing. This zoning occurred when the Mareeba Shire Planning Scheme was gazetted in early 2005.

Council met in December 2004 to approve the new scheme. Mayor Borzi did not, it appears, declare any conflict of interest at the time. Given that the matter under consideration was a Shire-wide planning scheme, he may well have been entitled not to declare his interest. Such is the law, it seems. Not tough enough, in my opinion – but Mayor Borzi can’t be blamed for that.

At any time since 2005, the Mayor could have commenced development on these blocks, but instead he chose to leave them vacant. I imagine it has been beneficial for his image in Kuranda that he’s left the blocks undeveloped until now.

Whittling away at the forest on these blocks (which most Kuranda residents didn’t know he owned) would not be popular. It jeopardizes Kuranda’s unique rainforest setting and in the long-term, I believe, it would be a serious blow to the local tourist industry.

Days after I discovered the location of these blocks of land, I read through the Minutes of the Council meeting of February 19th 2008.

To my amazement, I discovered that in early February, after controversy about his Myola block had erupted, the Mayor put in an application to ‘reconfigure’ four of these Kuranda blocks on Morton Street into eight. Those are the blocks marked in purple on the map above.

His ‘reconfiguration permit’, approved by Council on February 19th (with Mayor Borzi on this occasion quite properly absent from the chair) also makes provision to put services into the blocks. It seems apparent it is a prelude to development.

It may be that this latest action by the Mayor and Mareeba Shire Council followed all the due processes required under Queensland legislation. If so, I think the law sucks. How can it be right for a subdivision to go through Council with no prior public advertising or notification – other than a one line note in the Council Agenda?

I warned in an earlier media release that without urgent State intervention, there is a danger that Mareeba Council, in its dying days, would make many decisions that are contrary to the public interest and driven by vested interests.

In this case, it appears the Mayor application went straight to the top of the queue? Over the years, many residents have not been so fortunate. Council is not always quite so efficient!

My concerns that Mareeba Shire Council has not been thoroughly investigated have intensified because of this latest incident.

Far from going on the defensive, the Mayor appears to be facing down an increasingly outraged Kuranda community.

The decision on the Mayor’s Kuranda blocks was one small part of another long agenda. What else went through that meeting? What was decided at the more recent meeting on March 4th?

I don’t have the reources to check all this out. Is anyone else watching, studying and digging? How about the State Government?

This latest turn of events caused me to write once again to Warren Pitt, the Queensland Minister for Local Government. I believe the January 29th Special Meeting decisions – at minimum – should be overturned on procedural as well as planning grounds.

The referee – in this case the Queensland Government – should be the first recourse to enforce the law and oversee fair play. Interventions by third parties should, I believe, be a last resort.

The Mayor, however, appears unperturbed and pugnacious.

After I exposed the Myola conflict of interest issue, his statement in response mentioned subdivision. I thought that was bluster. Once again, I appear to have misread Mayor Borzi. It now appears he wasn’t joking at all.

Watch this space for more developments.

The retiring Mayor seems to like playing hardball with the public interest.

Soon he may find find he’s playing with forces that, unlike Mareeba Shire Council between 2000-2008, are ultimately beyond his control.