Howdy dear availees...strewth! that 9 days went by damnedly fast, I mean, I know it's Xmas and all, but what the actual?...anyhoos, here we are now, so away we go...jumping past the oft-promised post about the relentless Mt Gambier City Council deceits/corruption of the $70Million+ Farcical Aquatic Recreation Centre (FARC), to address this other piece of rampantly corrupt MGCC conduct...(well that's your opinion, that it's corrupt-Ed)...indeed, your point being?...(well sure it looks like willingly corrupt conduct-Ed)...at a number of levels and on various separate occasions...(sure, but I mean, given that MGCC has refused to answer your specific questions-Ed)...and then hasn't even responded to my last letter...(yeah, it therefore remains technically possible that this isn't actually another text-book example of MGCC's relentlessly corrupt conduct, as defined by their usual Standard Operational Deals For Mates functioning-Ed)...even though that's exactly what it looks like...(even though that's exactly what it looks like-Ed)...fair enough
For the record, and as referred to in the letter attached below, I have made multiple attempts to engage with the appropriate 'Authorities'...(like the Liquor Licensing peeps-Ed)...yep, like them, and with Mt Gambier City Council, to establish the 'Truth' about exactly how this particular event was allowed to happen...also for the record, I am deeply disappointed with the Liquor Licensing's lame responses...after receiving this dismissive answer just below (9th November 2021), on 15th November 2021 I emailed them again, including a copy of my latest letter to Council (further below)...Licensing have not responded to that email/letter...***
Good afternoon Mr Fletcher
The information you provided to Consumer and Business Services (CBS), has been referred to the Compliance and Enforcement (C&E) unit.
The C&E unit considers possible breaches of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997.
The matter you have brought to our attention relates to concerns of permits and approvals issued by the local council.
You will have to pursue your concerns with them.
We will retain the intel for assessment of future licence applications and thank you for your information.
While C&E treats all information supplied by consumers and stakeholders seriously, it cannot pursue all the complaints it receives or address all issues that come to its attention.
To make the best use of resources and maximise public benefit, compliance and enforcement activity will target complaints considering a range of factors including evidence or likelihood of broader consumer detriment, or evidence to suggest a history of illegal conduct. For further information on the enforcement powers, functions, priorities and strategies of CBS visit: http://www.cbs.sa.gov.au/investigations/cbs-investigates/
Information provided to CBS helps us to identify the highest areas of risk to focus resources on and assists with monitoring and compliance initiatives.
Regards
***...(well I'd have thought that a Council allowing an 'Illegal and Unlicensed' event to proceed, including the involvement of a former Councillor, that'd be serious enough for the Liquor Licensing peeps to at least get involved-Ed)...yeah, at best it's a lame failure to act in the direct area they are responsible for...(and at worst?-Ed)...at worst, if they have been in contact with Council and then refuse to act, then they are also complicit in supporting/allowing an 'Illegal' event...so here's the third letter I wrote Council (15th October 2021), as yet unanswered, by anyone...***
Team Leader General Inspector
Mt Gambier City Council
10 Watson Tce
Mt Gambier SA 5290
Email: city@mountgambier.sa.gov.au
Re: Tuck Shop Cafe Failure To Acquire Council Permits
Dear Mr Ferguson,
This is the third time I have written to Council seeking a straight-forward answer to a simple question, ie, did The Tuck Shop cafe proprietors have the appropriate Council approvals/permits to conduct the (liquor) licensed event of Friday 1st October 2021, as held on the public footpath at their site, 110 Wehl St Sth, Mt Gambier?
For the record;
this event included the erection of several marquees across the footpath and out onto the road, where a section of parking lane was partitioned-off with bunting and witches hats;
when I contacted Council at 1317hrs on 1st October 2021 to ask about this event, the lady who answered the phone could not find any approvals/permits, and said that someone was “looking into it” and that they would “call (me) back”;
that call-back was at 0956hrs the next morning, when, although Council offices are not open, 'Michelle' left a phone message stating that “the problem” was being addressed, and that the marquees were being removed “as we speak”.
Not only is it highly unusual for Council offices to be 'open' on a Saturday morning, the statement further indicated that The Tuck Shop likely did not have the necessary approvals/permits to do what they were doing, otherwise there would be no “problem”.
From Council's two initial verbal responses it is reasonable to summise that The Tuck Shop did not have these Council approvals/permits.
The chronology of contacts shows that Council was therefore aware on the Friday afternoon that the 'event' did not have appropriate approvals/permits, but chose to allow the event to proceed.
I then wrote to Council on Tuesday 5th October 2021 specifically seeking clarification of this issue, ie, did The Tuck Shop proprietors have the requisite approvals/permits from Council?
Council's one-line written response of Thursday 7th October is extremely vague, but seemingly confirms that The Tuck Shop did not have the relevant approvals/permits;
“Council has investigated and addressed matters directly with the proprietors of the Tuck Shop cafe.”
I re-iterate, given that the “matters” presumably refers to my inquiries about approvals/permits, etc, if everything had been done appropriately and the relevant approvals/permits were issued by Council, then what was there to investigate, and what needed to be addressed?
Now you are claiming that Council will not answer my simple question because;
“For privacy and confidentiality reasons Council does not provide information on matters pertaining to unrelated third parties.”
Firstly, Council's 3 previous responses already indicate that The Tuck Shop did not have the requisite approvals/permits, as explained above.
Secondly, how is a business operating a 'for profit' function on a public footpath and road in any way subject to “privacy and confidentiality reasons”, especially when they were apparently 'illegally' serving alcohol?
Thirdly, why repeatedly discuss this issue with me, but wait until the 4th response (2 verbal, 2 written) to cite these alleged “privacy and confidentiality reasons”?
This event involved the sale of 'open' alcohol directly onto a public footpath in a residential street, an event that included marquees blocking-off the footpath and a section of parking lane of a busy semi-arterial road, by definition literally everybody is a 'related third party'
Any of the neighbours affected by the noise, parking issues, drunk and/or rowdy patrons; anyone walking past and therefore through that function or having to cross that busy road to avoid it, etc; anyone driving past; and by definition of accountability, each and every Ratepayer in Mt Gambier, we are all 'related third parties'.
I do not believe that any such “privacy and confidentiality reasons” exist under law, and that you are trying to use these unspecified vaguaries as a false justification for not answering my questions, but if I'm wrong, please direct me to the specific legislation that deems the issuing and/or discussion of these basic permits to be subject to “privacy and confidentiality reasons”.
Furthermore, given that Council were clearly aware that this was not a 'legally' sanctioned event, who would be liable had there been an accident, eg, patrons standing on the footpath and/or section of partitioned-off road, or indeed just in the vicinity of the event, had been hit by a car?
What if an alcohol affected patron drove and had an accident, and it was then discovered that they were 'illegally' served that alcohol? And with Council's knowledge and therefore tacit approval?
If there was any sort of accident, and it was then established that the event did not have the appropriate Council approvals/permits, then any insurances would be rendered void/redundant.
No insurance company is going to knowingly cover an 'illegal' event, and will automatically cancel/withdraw any cover upon learning that the event is 'illegal'.
And worse, if it was then shown that Council had been alerted to the 'illegal' event and was therefore aware but allowed it to continue, and there was an accident of any sort, then affected parties would be well within their rights to sue Council for any injuries and/or other damages, etc.
And any compensation awarded against Council would be paid for by Ratepayers, because every cent Council spends, on anything, every cent is Ratepayer's money.
Therefore, every Ratepayer in Mt Gambier, myself included, is a concerned 'third party' with a direct financial stake in events being conducted 'legally' with appropriate Council approvals/permits and liquor licensing.
It's the fundamental reason why we have these rules and regulations, so that functions are conducted appropriately and safely, etc, and that patrons and everyone else potentially involved have the relevant appropriate protections under law.
Why have you directed me to the Liquor Licensing Commission? What has the LLC got to do with my questions to Council about a business failing to get appropriate permits from Council?
However, as per your instruction, I have contacted the Consumer and Business Services (Liquor, Gambling and Lotteries), and they directed me back to you, to Council, as being the 'Authority' with the primary responsibility for the issues I have raised.
As I previously stated in my letters, it is my understanding that the onus lies with the proprietor to first gain the appropriate Council approvals/permits before a Liquor License, even a temporary one, can be issued, and the CBS (LGL) confirmed that it is the proprietor's responsibility to;
acquire appropriate Council approvals/permits for any function/event, and;
to do so before the proprietor can then apply for any relevant Liquor Licenses, and;
that failure to get appropriate Council approvals/permits renders any subsequent Liquor Licenses as void/redundant, and therefore;
the function/event would be rendered 'unlicensed' and therefore 'illegal'.
They explained/confirmed that any involvement of the Liquor Licensing Commission is contingent on the previous actions of the proprietor and relevant Council and that those facts need to be established first, which is what I am trying to do.
Even if I hadn't previously explained all of this in my correspondence, I find it hard to believe that Council would not be aware of this fundamental chain of responsibility.
And again it comes back to who is going to be held financially responsible if something goes wrong and the proprietors do not hold the requisite approvals/permits/licenses.
Without hyperbole, everyone I have discussed this with questions the 'legality' of The Tuck Shop cafe's current location, operating from the proprietor's driveway directly onto the footpath in a residential street, and no-one can believe that a licensed function was allowed at that site.
As repeatedly stated to me, 'this just looks like another instance of favourable treatment for family and/or mates of Council', a belief further cemented when people become aware that the co-proprietor of The Tuck Shop is a former Mt Gambier City Councillor.
Please provide me with the 'public' information that I have repeatedly requested confirming that The Tuck Shop did or did not have the requisite Council approvals/permits for their event, because as explained above, and as per their direction, I cannot pursue this issue with CBS (LGL) until I have that specific information.
Also, please direct me to the specific approvals/permits that would allow me to operate a business at my residential address in the manner The Tuck Shop has been doing since it first opened.
Yours,
***...and here's the auto-response from Council, indicating that my email/letter was received at 1327hrs, 16th October 2021...***
Thank you for your email. This auto reply is confirmation that your message has been received by the City of Mount Gambier. Your request will be forwarded to an appropriate staff member for a response.
***...and I've let it slide thus far, not least of all 'cos all involved clearly have no intention of acting appropriately, but I can absolutely promise that I'm looking forward to kicking-off the New Year with a renewed examination of this very serious issue...(mate! the way you've covered the apparent breaches/failures and the potential implications, all of that, how can the Liquor Licensing peeps not act?-Ed)...well quite, I mean, Council's actions are transparently corrupt in favour of a mate, but what about the Licensing stuff?...(is it that the Licensing peeps have looked at this and decided that Council's corrupt conduct is a whole bunch of shizzle that they, The Licensors, just don't want to have to deal with?-Ed)...quite possibly, sure, but that then runs directly into being potentially 'complicit', that is, they know how wrong all this is but are trying to avoid getting involved...
And as per usual, I'm quite happy to correct and/or clarify this issue should any of the various involved parties see fit to contact me...but, as it currently stands, I feel it is completely obvious what has and hasn't happened here, namely, that the proprietors did not have the requisite Council permits/approvals, and that Council knew and let the function continue anyways...
Tomorrow: Trying To Explain The MGCC Lies About The FARC Costings
It's part-written already, but there's been heaps of research involved with that post....(and not least of all several hours trawling through MGCC's Budgets from recent years-Ed)...yep, which by definition means trying to engage with facts and figures that I simply don't believe at any level...(so quoting from those self-same numbers is a bit, shall we say, problematic?-Ed)...yes, that's a very polite way of putting it, 'problematic'...
I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog....cheers and laters...
PS: I'm particularly hot on this Licensing issue 'cos those involved have many questions to answer about a range of corrupt/illegal activities...and they can can rest assured that we are definitely going there too in the New Year...(yay-Ed)...
No comments:
Post a Comment