THE MIRROR
Wednesday 25 November 2015
Folio 2/ Issue 2/ Page One
Bush lawyers don’t need advice John Mitchell Palerang councillors have voted 5:3 against a proposal that they seek legal advice on preventing or reversing the illegal dismissal of the Council. The proposal also asked the Council to conjoin any such legal action with that of neighbouring Councils and/or Local Government NSW. The vote has surprised many in the Palerang community. A week before, a 7:1 majority had supported a motion to oppose the State Government’s verdict that it was not fit to stand alone, and most of the speakers challenged both the process and result of the assessment. Only a week before that Cr Cockram had gone further and described the State Government’s stand as “immoral” and “illegal.” The legal advice motion was put on notice by Cr Marshall for an extraordinary meeting held on Thursday 19 November. In a statement attached to the motion Cr Marshall said, “Firstly, Councillors should note that this motion, if resolved, will have no effect if the NSW Government acts legally and in good faith.” He continued, “Submissions to the NSW Government on Councils’ futures close on 18 November 2015. At any point after that date, the NSW Government may attempt to place Councils in Administration, with a view to re-forming them in line with the recommendations of IPART and the Review of Local Government. “Councillors have seen legal advice that the NSW Government cannot legally dismiss Council or councillors without going through a particular process set down in legislation. This motion simply seeks to ensure that process is followed. “Why would Palerang Council do this? Palerang’s ratepayers and residents have overwhelming expressed a desire NOT to be amalgamated with Queanbeyan City Council, which is the most likely action of the NSW Government. While a significant percentage of Palerang residents and ratepayers have an open mind to arrangements with other Councils, such an option is not on the table, and Councils were given just 30 days to come up with such proposals, which is an absurd timeframe. “In addition, an extended period of Administration carries significant risks to the Palerang (and Queanbeyan) communities. An Administrator has all the powers of Council, and is therefore completely undemocratic. An Administrator may commit Palerang and Queanbeyan Councils to actions against the wishes of the community, not just in terms of amalgamation but in terms of expenditure, revenue, planning – for example, large and contentious Development Applications may be approved without democratic oversight.. “An approach to forced amalgamations that does not involve such risks is perfectly feasible– this would involve leaving Councils
in place until the September 2016 Council elections, with the elections to be held for the amalgamated Council, and tasking the existing Councils with planning for that amalgamation. “Palerang Council is unlikely to be alone in resisting forced amalgamations preceded by a period of Administration, and there may be significant improvements in effectiveness of legal action, and reductions in cost of legal action, if Palerang Council does so in cooperation with like-minded neighbouring Councils, and/or Local Government NSW.. “Lastly, if the NSW Government dismisses Council and appoints an Administrator, who has the full powers of Council, the Administrator may seek to rescind any such Resolution to take legal action. Council may wish to seek advice from its legal advisors on how to preempt such an occurance,” Cr Marshall said. Before the councillors started their deliberations three members of the public gallery spoke. Queanbeyan councillor Kenrick Winchester said, “We are all well aware of the defects and faults of the IPART review and both councils should be doing all they can to stave off any forced amalgamations.. This motion will help protect the Council and community of Palerang. “The councils that have accepted the State’s direction to merge are similar urban or rural councils. The amalgamation with Queanbeyan will be between two quite different council areas and [the population imbalance between the two areas] is likely to leave the Palerang area with one, and possibly two representatives,” he said. Bungendore resident Sheridan Marsh said she had looked at the legal advice attached to the motion and it should be of concern to both councils. “[..But] from a public service point of view, the NSW Local Government Department isn’t likely to be acting outside of their act.” Bungendore consultant Greg Nye said this would be his last appearance before Palerang Council, as it exists, because in December he will be in Columbia. “[Cr] Winchester’s presumption that Palerang is rural is wrong. When this amalgamation is done, and Braidwood, which is rural, goes to Goulburn, which is rural, the makeup of Palerang will be very much like Queanbeyan, with hobby farms and subdivisions like Elmslea and Jerrabomberra..” Cr Marshall then moved his motion. “..This motion is not about resisting amalgamations. If the State wants to amalgamate Palerang, or break it up as it did with Yarrowlumla, there are perfectly legal ways to do it. “The purpose of this motion is to keep a place at the table for Palerang and its community and to ensure that while any amalgamation or break up is being considered, the Council can continue to represent its ratepayers..” Cr Morrison. “This motion is about legal action should the State Government dismiss this Council. It also looks to sharing the burden with similar councils. “It’s not the department
or the bureaucracy that’s pushing this. It’s a political push, coming from the Premier’s office. This is a process being driven by an outcome..” Cr Hicks. “This is fairly crazy stuff. The decision hasn’t even been made.. “Let’s sit back and see what the outcome is and then try and get a more favourable outcome. “The State Government are saying we’re not financially fit for the future and here we are wanting to spend more money.” Cr Morrison. “Point of order. The State have not said we’re not financially fit for the future. To the contrary, they’ve said we’re financially fit..” Mayor Harrison.”That’s not a point of order. Cr Hogarth-Boyd. “This motion is to make since there is due process and that requires going to the Governor and the Boundaries Commission. If the Council is dismissed and we can’t get legal opinion, there is no due process. This is to be forewarned and forearmed.. “We’ve gone through months of consultation and now we’re being told ‘If you can think of someone else you’d like to be amalgamated with, pop their name down. How can that be considered due process..?” Cr Cockram. “What can I say? This is a ‘dog dropping’ motion. It is one of those motions where the mover didn’t check the numbers to see what chance it had and no emails to put the case and shore up support.. “It’s absurd that we should consider spending money without any idea of what will happen.. “This motion is set up to fail and it’s going to fail.” Cr Marshall. “Point of order. What’s the relevance. Cr Cockram should not be talking about caucussing.” Mayor Harrison. “That’s not a point of order.” Cr Cockram. “I’m happy to withdraw the reference to caucussing.” Cr Schweikert. “Point of order. Cr Marshall and Morrison are deliberately moving objections to disrupt the flow of thought.. I ask that this be noted.” Mayor Harrison. “Do you have a question, or want to say something?” Cr Schweikert. “I have a question for the mover and seconder. Firstly, how much will this cost?” Cr Marshall. “..I said in the background statement that it will cost nothing if the NSW government acts legally and in good faith.” Cr Schweikert. “Then what is the purpose of this motion?” Mayor Harrison. “You might like to ask that as a rhetorical question in formal debate.” Cr Schweikert. “I don’t mean it to be rhetorical. I just don’t understand.” Mayor Harrison. “Just move it that way as you speak to the motion.” Cr Schweikert. “My next question then. Who or what legal advisors?” Cr Marshall. “Cr Schweikert has just made a point of order about interrupting the flow of debate. He has been on this Council for three years [and] he is well aware that Council has a legal panel from which it draws. These are frivolous questions and I would request that they stop.” Continued page 2
THE MIRROR
Wednesday 25 November 2015
Folio 2/ Issue 2/ Page Two
Bush lawyers don’t need advice From Page 1 Cr Harrison. “I think you can make most of these points in the formal debate.” Cr Schweikert. “I can’t vote for this unless I know how much it will cost, and if the cost is so great, it will have to go to the Austender website, and get someone else to do it. “I have a question for the GM. Is this particular motion legal for our legal advisors to act upon. This isn’t exactly Council business.” GM Peter Bascomb. “I believe it’s relatively vague but we could work with the legal advisors to narrow the field.. “I can’t comment on the cost, because how far the advice goes will depend on what happens..” Cr Schweikert. “Do you know how much our legal panel costs per hour?” Mr Bascomb. “Across the panel, the average is about $500 for a partner and $300 for a senior associate..” Cr Schweikert. “I’d like to speak against. Cr Marshall said this was just a tactic to keep a place at the table. We received a letter from
cheque for legal advice.. I don’t believe it’s this Council’s position to do that.. “If the community thinks we’re worth saving it’s up to the community to do that..” Cr Marshall. “Mr Mayor. The community doesn’t have legal standing [but] the Council does.. As Cr Hogarth-Boyd has said, if we sit back and wait for the decision, that will be too late. When a decision is made, you don’t get to instruct lawyers.. “The idea that governments always act legally is an interesting one because governments are acting illegally every week. For instance a Fegeral Environment Minister approving a mine he hasn’t gone through all the proper steps for. It happens all the time at Federal, State and local government level. “We can’t get a better deal for anyone if we don’t exist..” The motion was then put and lost. For: Crs Hogarth-Boyd, Marshall and Morrison. Against: Crs Cockram, France, Harrison, Hicks and Schweikert. Cr Graham was absent.
the Premier last week saying that Councils who follow the advice of IPART and agree to amalgamate will remain as councillors until the September elections.. “I think this is a frivolous waste of ratepayers money, just to boost somebody’s popularity.. Cr France. “When I first joined Council, and we talked about what we are here for and where we want to go, it was all about representing the ratepayers of Palerang, and whether Palerang was worth saving, and moving on. And we did, and I can’t remem ber it being party political at that point. “For some reason, in the last year, this Council has become so party political it’s sickening. It’s about time councillors got off the bandwagon of the parties they think they represent, and go back to why they were elected.. “I’m not sure I like the motion, but I don’t want to be forced into an amalgamation like we were 10 years ago..” Mayor Harrison. “I can’t feel comfortable about asking ratepayers to sign an open