Seymour candidates face community questions ahead of council elections

Each candidate was given a four-minute time limit to tell the community their plans if elected.

Community members asked burning questions that they thought needed attention from aspiring councillors.

The Seymour We Want members received a total of 40 questions from the attendees, which were divided into four categories.

First was the candidates’ stance on the proposed Seymour Wellbeing Hub, then the environment, disability and Indigenous affairs, and farming.

The question-and-answer session kicked off with a question from The Seymour We Want Committee, asking how the candidates would prioritise their roles as councillors.

Stuart Ferguson said working part-time allowed him enough flexibility to balance responsibilities.

“I am only working part-time, probably seven shifts in the fortnight,” he said.

“I tend to spend time with my wife, family, so I probably would have to give up that time, but I would end up working at full-time in total.”

Meanwhile, Andrea Pace highlighted that council would be her sole commitment.

“I’m a full-time mum, I’ve got kids and grandkids. My next nurturing is the community,” she said.

“I give all of myself to that position. Whatever you need, I will listen.”

Army veteran John Dougall said he worked part-time in the Army Reserve, which gave him a variable schedule.

“This job (councillor) requires, at its core, consultation. That takes time and energy,” he said.

“My commitment is to consult well, not a ‘ticking the box exercise’, but to properly engage, properly understand, and translate that into action at council.

“If that takes x amount of time, that’s what it takes.”

Cr Bill Chisholm, who’s running for re-election, weighed in with his 12-year experience on council.

“It’s a minimum of 28 hours a week and probably it’s been a lot more than that because I’ve got a fair bit of travelling to do,” he said.

“I definitely know about the roads, and you’ve got to listen to people, but you’ve also got to look at the shire as a whole, not just one town.”

Ned Jeffrey said it was a major decision for him and his family, in terms of sacrificing time for council.

“I think that’s really what the town needs,” he said.

“It needs a person who is engaged in a number of different aspects of the town, has a deep understanding of where it comes from.

“I wouldn’t be here if I weren’t 100 per cent committed to that task.”

Eric Houghton said he had retired, and joked that he needed to stop running with kids.

“There will be some sacrifices, my work with Scouts, some other organisations will reduce,” he said.

“At the end of the day ... I think I can fit that in my schedule.”

The next question raised was how would council improve the lives of people with disability in the Mitchell Shire.

Mr Ferguson highlighted the need to know the areas where they resided to know where services were most needed.

“Survey those who do need some services and what they do need overall, as well,” he said.

“I think that way we can best place the services where they are in order to help support them, knowing that their journeys are a lot harder than the average person.”

Ms Pace said it was important to create a directory of support and services that were accessible to all, not just those with access to technology.

“If you do find yourself in the disability (sector), you can easily find those supporting services,” she said.

“For your needs, I would like to see more disability parking in the towns, flatten the footpaths, so people aren’t tripping.

“There’s a depth hazard, and if we need to paint a yellow line along the edge of the footpath, let’s do it.

“Whatever is required to make people’s lives easier is what I’m about.”

Mr Dougall emphasised that there were NDIS budgets at the federal level, but said the community’s role in the subject needed to be isolated.

“The community role in the subject needs to be really isolated. So, what is the role there?” he said.

“The second thing I do is understand what is the need.

“Engaging to properly understand what are the concerns of people with disabilities; that’s a pretty big figure that you wouldn’t want to act without knowing what exactly can you do to help.”

Meanwhile, Mr Houghton only had two words on the matter: inclusion and communication.

“If we include everybody in the community, and we listen to them and hear what they want here, what they need, we’re a long way towards solving the problem,” he said.

“Obviously, a financial one ... we haven’t got endless amounts of money.

“We listen, and we take it from those people that are suffering from these disabilities or have these disabilities, we get another step towards solving the problem.”

Mr Chisholm seconded Mr Houghton’s thoughts on the financial constraints when it came to health and wellbeing.

“As Eric said, a lot depends on money and what’s put into it,” he said.

“They (council) try and upgrade to disability (car) parks each year, I think some of that would surprise you, I think it’s around $30,000 on average to upgrade.

“There’s room for improvement, but it’s still limited for money.”

Mr Jeffrey said his perspective sat between Mr Dougall and Mr Chisholm’s in terms of council’s financial state, but that council had already put steps in place for health and wellbeing plans as part of the Mitchell Shire Council Plan 2021 to 2050.

“I saw more changes on it (NDIS Scheme) as recently as yesterday, so whether that is actually delivering on the ground is still questionable,” he said.

“It’s very much about getting council back to its core responsibilities.

“I think when we get our core responsibilities back in line, that will enable us to invest in other areas such as this one.”

The next question raised was on the candidates’ opinion on the subjects of Acknowledgement of Country and Welcome to Country.

Mr Ferguson said he didn’t have any particular opinion on it.

“It's been quite normal for me growing up. Especially, I’ve always sort of supported it ... never not supported it,” he said.

“I grew up with a lot of it, grew up with the change, so it’s probably why I’ve never had an issue with it.”

Ms Pace said she did not have an issue acknowledging anybody’s input into the community.

“Whether they were here before, whether they’re here now, or if they’re going to be here, I acknowledge the First People 100 per cent, I also acknowledge our Diggers, I acknowledge our workers, our farmers,” she said.

“Everybody is equal.”

Mr Dougall said community should not be separated by race or religion.

“As an Australian, that means something,” he said.

“I think we should have equal opportunity as we strive.

“There’s many, many claims to expectation, support, grievance, etc, but we should look forward, and we should look forward as an Australian country that for which everybody has the equal opportunity.”

Mr Chisholm said one of his concerns was to respect everyone.

“I think the First Nations people deserve recognition,” he said.

“Like a lot of things, it’s balance, and to get that balance right, it is a problem some of the time, but First Nations people definitely deserve respect like everybody else.”

Mr Jeffrey shared that he went to a flood meeting once after the January 2024 floods, where nine speakers said their acknowledgement despite there being no Indigenous people in the meeting, and said he thought that was a “complete waste” of council and the public’s time.

“I’ve worked with a number of Indigenous people over my career, and a number of them find Welcome to Countries etc (to be) ... a ‘white fella’ activity,” he said.

“If in council I find myself working with Indigenous people, they’ll be the people making the decision on whether we did a Welcome to Country or something like that.

“I don’t think it’s for us to impose on each other or the council as a town.”

Mr Houghton said it was important to uphold the real value of Welcome to Country.

“Welcome to Country is important in a context of the original inhabitants of the lands. I also think it’s important that the farmers, the pioneers and everybody else is treated with the same respect,” he said.

“What we need to do is make sure that the Welcome to Country is held in its true value, and not related to the point where people are sitting down going, ‘Not that again’.

“That’s disrespectful of what it actually is.”

When the question about the issue of the Significant Land Overlay was brought up, a lot of the candidates were tight-lipped, as most didn’t have a full understanding of what the SLOs meant.

But Mr Jeffrey, who’s had 20 years of farming experience, gave everyone a brief summary of the topic.

“The level of impost on farmers not only through this thing (SLO), but through building a shed, trying to go through the planning department, trying to go to the building department, trying to go through a fire overlay, trying to chop down a bigger tree that's dangerous, trying to get someone on the farm to actually talk about it, and try to get the right person on the farm is near impossible,” he said.

“The council has put in place a whole heap of mechanisms to basically protect itself from talking to individuals trying to actually make contact with the person.

“It’s extremely frustrating and at the moment, this is not over my farming area, but I understand it’s over the western side of Mitchell Shire, and I’ll be fighting very firmly against it.

“It’s surprisingly difficult to do farming in Mitchell Shire now, so I can 100 per cent understand where the frustration in the crowd is coming from, and I’ll be standing firmly against it.”

The last question was on the plan on remove Seymour’s library as part of the construction plans of the Seymour Community Hub.

There wasn’t enough time to answer the question so it was suggested to be answered with a yes or no, but outgoing Cr Rhonda Sanderson warned that they needed to be careful as what they said in the forum might stop them from actually getting to vote about the subject in the future.

The night ended with the last question unanswered.