Community Support?
Could someone at Hunter Water clarify the role of Mr Rod Williams please? I am asking this because not long after the announcement of the new mega dam by our infrastructure savvy premier, Morris Iemma, Mr Williams visited my home unexpectedly in the role of community support officer. He was accompanied by a psychologist. I had never met either person before but gave up approximately an hour and a half of my time detailing the enormous upheaval this unnecessary dam was going to cause and how we were losing all our neighbours and probably our whole way of life. I stressed that I have on-going health issues and that above all else I hoped for, and expected, the minimal environmental impact possible if this madness went ahead. Since then I have not had any contact or feedback whatever from Mr Williams or the psychologist and I am therefore somewhat confused.
If Mr Williams is meant to be truly involved with community support, why then does he seem to be running around spruiking tourism proposals that will clearly be to the detriment of those of us who have been left here in the Williams River Valley and to the many residents of Dungog who want to maintain a peaceful rural town? With what authority does he insist on destroying what makes Dungog special in order to save it? Clearly activities involving water skiing, caravan parks, education centres, tourist resorts, jet skiers and property development won’t affect him personally or his fellow residents at Stroud. And why does he feel it appropriate for a community support officer to defend the use of Dungog High School for what is a highly political and contentious process? I thought schools were meant to be institutions for learning. It is indeed a most peculiar form of community support that appears to focus primarily on how to profit from what is a desperately sad, short-sighted, unwise, destructive and politically driven decision.
Ken Kneipp
MUNNI
John Rapson said:
I would like to clarify some points made by Ken Kneipp
Rod Williams is not an employee of Hunter Water. Rod has been engaged by Dungog Information and Neighbourhood Centre (DINS) to fulfil a role which our organisation felt was needed in the Tillegra/Munni/Quart Pot communities after the announcement of the Tillegra Dam proposal in November 2006.
At the public meeting of the Tillegra Dam Community Reference Group (TDCRG) in August 2007, which you attended Ken, it was made very clear that Rod’s position was initiated and filled by DINS.
I admit that some funding was received by DINS from Hunter Water for a number of projects, including Rods position, however, it is both unhelpful and mischievous of you to ask Hunter Water to clarify his position when you know that it is not Hunter Water’s place to do so.
At the October 2007 meeting of the TDCRG, a request was made to DINS to furnish the job description and project aims of Rod’s position. After consulting with DINS and Rod, it was decided to provide this information for transparency sake.
I would hazard at a guess that Rod Williams job description is one of the very few in this shire that has been made publically available. This document is freely available for all to view on the Hunter Water’s website, or at the Dungog Community Library, as part of the TDCRG notes.
The role of the DINS community support officer was to contact those directly affected by the announcement (those in and around the inundation area) and to offer support and guidance to those who wished to accept the offer. A psychologist was engaged by DINS, not Rod Williams, to also offer support to those who may have requested it. This is why a psychologist accompanied Rod on some visits.
After talking to residents of the affected area, the number one issue that came up with the majority of landholders was unselfishly not about them, but about the future of our town. Their greatest fear was that this dam may be approved with no benefits flowing through to the greater Dungog community.
This has been the basis of Rod’s work since his engagement by DINS. Ken, you may disagree with what Rod is trying to achieve, however, the tact that he is taking has been endorsed not only by the majority of those most affected by the proposal, but also by the management committee of DINS.
I find it somewhat confusing that someone who seems to have not accepted Rod’s offer of support can then question what others in the affected area have asked him to do!
The Growth through Imposition forum that is being organised for August 6 is a chance for all residents of the area to see what benefits that may be available as a result of the dam being approved.
Don’t get me wrong, very few, if any people in this community want the dam to proceed if we had a choice.
If, however, the dam does go ahead, many see it as the catalyst for some growth and opportunity in the shire that will in turn allow us to retain some of our youth, whereas at the moment, our youth is Dungog’s single biggest export commodity.
John Rapson
Honorary treasurer, DINS.
David Smith said:
John, in reading your reply it is my understanding that “the basis of Rod’s work” is to ease the fear of residents that should the dam go ahead then no benefit would flow through to the greater Dungog community. While I appreciate that there may be the need for someone in this role, is not this the role of the unpaid community representatives on the Tillegra Dam Community Reference Group?
With regards to the Growth through Imposition forum, which I attended I have a few points to make:
1. In my opinion there was not one realistic or relevant benefit demonstrated for our community.
2. I felt Rod William’s behaviour on the night was unprofessional at the least. He obsequiously offered Gae Swain (Mayor of Gunnedah) a glass of water that he proudly announced was “Hunter Water” – yuk! – more likely it was water from the Williams River or Chichester River. Also his ringing of the bell when Sally Corbett asked Gae some dam related questions was out of order. And yet he did not show the same level of ‘support’ to James Hopson!
3. I spoke to several of the handful of students present at the forum – not one of them nor any of their peers (according to them) can see the dam enabling them to remain working in Dungog.
David Smith
NTDG member
John Rapson said:
David
I am more than happy to discuss with you the purpose of the forum, Rod Williams position etc face to face, as no matter what either the TDCRG or DINS publishes, some people will only read and believe what they want
I am not supprised what so ever by your comments above, as the chair of your group has publically stated at a TDCRG meeting that the NTDG will not engage with the community to try and generate some ecomonic benefits IF the dam is given the go-ahead
I am all for transparent and open discussion David, but for this to happen, it has to be a 2 way street.
Sally Corbett said:
John
I’ll leave the generating of economic benefits in your capable hands. I’m sure you would agree that we should all work to our own strengths.
At the moment, the NTDG believes that Dungog’s heritage is worth fighting for, so is its farmland and farm incomes and farming families and the health of the Williams River and all that it supports – natural ecosystems and agriculture.
We believe this heritage is worth supporting and treasuring for the benefit of future generations, and shouldn’t be sacrificed for a dam that nobody needs.
John Rapson said:
Sally
Thankyou for replying
Yes we are trying to obtain some financial and social benefits IF the dam goes ahead. Yes we are fairly well equiped to do this, however, we are always looking for more constructive advice, help etc. I just wished the NTDG stopped fighting, complaining, bitching etc at the hard work that these individuals are doing. Remember, contrary to some comments eminating out of the NTDG, we are NOT pro dam, far from it. We have stated publically many times that if we had a choice, then we would not choose to have the dam. All we are doing is planning for a possible future that MAY include a dam
I agree with your comments about keeping up your fight, re environmentsal issues, families etc, I just wished that this is what you stuck to. Fight the dam on its fundementals (I think you have lost sight of this…), please stop fighting the very people who you say you are looking out for, that is, the Dungog community.
David Smith said:
John,
I don’t believe we (NTDG) are fighting the Dungog community – our fight is against the NSW Government and by default Hunter Water. I have never thought that the NTDG was against trying to achieve what is best for our community – in your terms social and economic benefits; in our terms we include those as well as environmental and other community values. The most critical is a basic tenant of participatory democracy – the sense that one has some control over one’s life. The arrogant way that this government has treated this community with regards to the Tillegra Dam proposal has really hurt a lot of people.
I want what we all want for our community – a healthy viable valley that my children and their children can appreciate and be proud of and have a sense of belonging. Without the opportunity to participate in the process (as each of the communities involved in the dams presented as positive outcomes at the forum) alienation is what one feels.
My disappointment with the Community Support Officer is that I believe he has shown a bias against some members of the community – namely NTDG members and others that are not directing their energies to the issues of living with a dam, but would rather focus on efforts to demonstrate the dam is just not needed and therefore should not go ahead.
John Rapson said:
David
You may not think that the NTDG is fighting the community. I would suggest however that you read all press releases, letters to the editor, posts on this website etc by NTDG members. I would also suggest that you read the notes from the TDCRG meetings, as well as talk to the community of Dungog who are not involved in the NTDG, then ask yourself again, is the NTDG fighting the community?? I would suggest that your answer to the question may change.
You say that the NTDG want to focus their efforts demonstrating that the dam is not needed….is saying that the TDCRG members who organised the forum have stooped to “dirty tactics and gutter politics” focusing your efforts on the need for the dam? Is accusing some members of the TDCRG of obtaining “financial gain” from being on the group an effort to stop the dam? Is the accusation that I am pro dam because I want to plan for a future that MAY include a dam helping the NTDG’s cause? I could go on and on, but let me just say, there a lot of people heartily sick and tired of the continual personal attacks by NTDG members, as well as the attempt to try and discredit and tarnish every aspect of our groups endeavours.
David, I have 3 words for the NTDG that may enable it to resurrect some relevance within our greater community…HONESTY, CREDABILITY and TRANSPARENCY. No matter what you may think of your adversaries (state gov, hunter water, and it seems, Rod Williams), your group will always struggle for traction with government and community leaders unless you fully embrace these 3 concepts
David Smith said:
John
I really think that it is time for some healing to happen but as you have said yourself it has to be a two way street. There seems to be some severe misconceptions out there. If the NTDG is not relevant or credible (your words) to our community then where is the debate, where is the “stand up for your rights” democratic process, where is the open discussion happening. The TDCRG has its set terms of reference – quite understandable – but this precludes open discussion since it will not /can not allow discussion about “no dam” options. As to transparency, we are not trying to hide anything, on the contrary we are trying to expose what the government has done and proposes to do. And certainly we do not have any hidden agendas. Read the articles on this website – we are wearing our hearts on our sleeves.
As to questioning our honesty, well I’ll just leave that.
John Rapson said:
David
You seem to have once again misinterpreted my meaning
When I say the NTDG has little to no relevance and credibility within the greater Dungog Shire area, it is beacuse of the tact that your group has taken, not beecause you are against the dam (we all are). Bagging residents, not releasing details of your geotech studies (beacuse hunter water wont pay for them??) for open and honest discussion and review by others etc is why so many people have been turned off your group.
You want to leave honesty alone, well, someone has to do it (lucky me…)
Honesty is about not making statements that you already know the answers to. The TDCRG is NOT PRO DAM (never has, never will be), but your group still trots out this line everytime the reference group deals with any issue that the NTDG feels as though they dont agree with. For eighteen months the NTDG has ridiculed the reference group, has given the chair of the group an absolute pasting that was never warranted, and generally tried to be-little the very thing that your group is a part of. If the NTDG was so adamant that the TDGRG is a mouthpiece of hunter water (NTDG words, not mine), a waste of time and resources etc, why the hell is the NTDG still a part of it? (this has a lot to do with credibility as well)
David, I know better than most the pain and suffering associated with your land and birth-right being taken away from you because of a decision made by some bureaucrat. I just want the NTDG to stop the shit that they have been dishing up to the local community in the past, and actually get on with the job of being an effective and credible opposition, and above all, stop the continual harrassment and character assassinations on the people who are planning for a future that MAY include a dam. Very few, if any, people have spoken out against the NTDG’s tactics for the fear they they will be publically labelled a pro damer…its just that I have had enough of the bullshit thats been going on for far too long