Find out first

I reply to Cr. Doyle's comments that in attending the February Patonga Association he was "hoping to get an appreciation of their points of view" and that he "hoped to have an individual meeting with (me) to hear (my) side of the story".

One must ask the question, shouldn't Cr. Doyle have sought this information before he and the other councillors voted to implement an AFZ in the first place?

Cr Doyle went on to write to the editor of the Patonga Village Voice after the same Progress meeting and said: "I attempt to research all the issues before I make a decision and vote accordingly."

Cr. Doyle, your actions belie your political rhetoric!

I would welcome a meeting with Cr. Doyle to set the record straight and provide the councillor with more accurate "research" information than he has obviously been able to gather so far.

The only point to such a meeting however is if Cr. Doyle is prepared to either move a motion to rescind the AFZ or suspend its operation until such time as the tavern at Patonga is operational after hearing the facts which would support such an action.

I wish to draw to the readers' attention the following facts so they can to make their own judgements:

1. Patonga has had a bottleshop licence since 1967.

Since that time, 34 years, there has not been one alcohol-related incident - a fact which the police have noted on the council public record.

2. The Mayor and Cr Doyle told the council meeting that they were advised that the law in relation to AFZ's was such that the police would only take action if there was a problem.

This was patently incorrect advice and chief inspector Greg Ashurst has gone on the public record to confirm that the police would strictly enforce the zone in the performance of their duty, i.e. the council got it wrong and are plainly mistaken about the law.

Alcohol-free zone means just that.

3. The council officers preparing the business paper and recommendations to council, again either mistakenly or intentionally, (I personally believe the latter), advised council that a majority of submissions were in support of an AFZ when in fact the opposite was the case.

The council officers contrived this conclusion by adding all 175 members of the Patonga Progress Association to the tally in support of an AFZ when they knew full well that only 23 members had narrowly supported it.

The true picture was the vast majority of residents, (an almost 4:1 ratio) opposed the AFZ.

At the February meeting of the Patonga Beach Progress Association, it was established that the resolution from the meeting endorsing the AFZ was unconstitutional and indeed all business at that meeting was declared null and void!

4. The only argument in support of the council's decision was from the licensing police who cited anonymous complaints of acts of intimidation.

When questioned about this, they merely said a child or the elderly could feel intimidated by an adult standing in the public domain.

"Intimidation" is a new buzz word used by police and council following the recent change to the Summary Offences Act.

The reality though is that the law defines the standard of intimidation to be a person of a strong personality or disposition.

That is to say, not the standard of a small child or the frail or elderly.

Not withstanding this legal basis, one of the unique characters of Patonga is the family atmosphere that does exist where women, children and the general store and its environs.

Finally as a footnote to the decisions by council and actions by a number of the executive of the Patonga Progress Association, the majority of the executive was removed from the office by an overwhelming vote of no confidence in them last Saturday.

Frankly, the integrity of council is now on the line as far as the residents are concerned and I trust the readers of Peninsula News.

The question now remains for council to put right the wrong and accept the wishes of the majority of residents and not dictate to the people what their personal beliefs or wishes are.

If no remedial action is taken by council, I believe it will be a firm indictment of our elected representatives which will demonstrate that the Council Chamber is a very shallow forum for democracy indeed.

Robert S Osborne, Patonga