THE MIRROR Palerang opts to go for broke Folio 2/ Issue 1/ Page One
Monday 9 November 2015
John Mitchell Palerang councillors have voted to reject the State Government’s assessment that it is not fit to stand alone. It will also continue with its $50,000 consultation to gauge its ratepayers’ attitudes to a 40% above rate peg rate rise over five years. A minute from Mayor Pete Harrison to the Council’s November ordinary meeting noted, “Palerang Council is one of the 87 out of 152 Councils across NSW that have been declared ‘not fit’ in the IPART Assessment of Council Fit for the Future Proposals. All Councils have until 18 November 2015 to provide a response to the IPART findings. Council needs to determine a preferred direction in relation to its response.” He continued, “It is clear that the State is largely ignoring more than 60 recommendations provided by the Independent Local Government Review Panel and is concentrating on the concept of ‘bigger is better,’ despite the evidence suggesting that this applies only to areas of higher population density. “There is little empirical evidence to support the ‘economics of scale’ argument for geographically large rural LGAs. “There has also been little evidence that the State is implementing the broader recommendations of the Local Government Act Taskforce, which was given the job of recommending the foundations of a new local government act to replace the existing anachronistic and overly prescriptive 1993 Act. The stated goal in establishing the taskforce was to encourage a better culture of partnership between State and local governments rather than ‘master-servant’ culture embedded in the current Act. The approach of the State to the reform process suggests that they have abandoned the idea of a mature partnership approach..” Mayor Harrison recommended that Council 1) Not accept the flawed and apparently superficial assessment by IPART 2) Reaffirm its position that Palerang Council supports the majority view of its community that Palerang remain as a Local Government Area in its own right and 3) Provide feedback on the IPART assessment by advising NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet that Council •does not endorse a merger with any neighbouring LGA •would accept appropriate boundary adjustments to the Palerang LGA involving inclusion of portions of neighbouring LGAs that have a common community interest with the Palerang LGA •has demonstrated scale and capacity through its own resources and through regional cooperation •supports active participation in the Canberra Region Joint Organisation (CBRJO) as the most appropriate means of further enhancing Palerang’s ability to engage with State agencies and participate in regional planning while meeting its community objective of retaining local democracy. Moving the recommendation Mayor Harrison said, “The IPART assessment says that Palerang will meet the Government’s financial sustainabil-
ity benchmarks, but won’t meet the Scale and Capacity threshold criterion in its own right. “This would appear to be only because, in the State’s assessment, Palerang alone does not have the same capacity as a merged Palerang and Queanbeyan Council, and not because Palerang is lacking in any way in itself. “ We note that our near neighbour Yass Valley, which has similar Scale and Capacity has been assessed as meeting the criterion and that Yass Valley didn’t have to compare its Scale to any other council in order to meet that benchmark.. “The bottom line is, through a range surveys and forums, our community has expressed the view that Palerang should remain as an independent council, and this motion seeks to convey that view to the State..” Cr Morrison. “I’d like to propose an amendment. I like the gist of the motion but think it can be quite a bit firmer. “In point 1) I would like to change ‘not accept’ to ‘reject’ and remove the word ‘apparently’. “We know that this is a process that has been driven by an outcome. The State has already decided what they want to do with Palerang and we need to reflect that in our motion..” Cr Graham. “Bungendore alone is not Palerang. There is not a community of interest between the rest of Palerang and Queanbeyan. “For months and months we councillors have applied ourselves to the detail of this proposal. We haven’t just flipped a coin and come to some conclusion.. “The councillors’ view validates what a majority of residents have said in surveys.” Cr Cockram. “I would like to see Point 1) moderated rather than strengthened. The statement ‘Reject the flawed and superficial assessment by IPART’ really is punching above our weight. I know it’s for domestic consumption but if I were IPART I’d say ‘What a bunch of prats’. A vote on Cr Morrison’s amendment was then put and carried and the amendment became the motion. Cr Schweikert. “Is this bravery or stupidity? The expert panel that twice said we should amalgamate with Queanbeyan and the umpire [IPART] has blown his whistle.. “After 3½ years all we can say is ‘bump up the rates.’ When the balloon starts sinking you start offloading things. We’ve been sailing along, looking at the clouds, while the balloon’s been sinking. “I’m foreshadowing a contrary motion that we accept [IPART’s] recommendation but that we require time to negotiate a different merger model.” Cr Marshall. “The umpire has spoken but somebody wrote the rules to say, ‘if you’re not big enough the umpire has to say you’re not big enough.. It’s somewhat circular and meaningless. “ Cr Cockram said we’re being hard on IPART. IPART couldn’t even get our proposed rate variation right. They said it’s 24% above rate cap when we’re actually looking for 40%. Their report is seriously wrong.. “Unlike Cr Schweikert, I believe we can argue against the State Government’s very flawed and
very biased process.. “Also, I believe we should put the special rate variation on hold and only proceed on the basis that it’s part of a stand alone proposal. Otherwise we’re locking our ratepayers to a 40% increase, no matter what the outcome.. “But we’re not here to talk about the special rate variation. This may be an imperfect approach but for now we should say ‘no’ to the amalgamation.” Cr Cockram. “I have no fundamental disagreement with the motion apart from point 1). “I disagree with Cr Schweikert saying that we can’t argue with the umpire. In current racing parlance we should tell them to ‘get stuffed’. “Now that a tougher amendment has been adopted, I’m loathe to propose a softer one. I’ll just go with the flow. “A question for the GM. Point 3) of the recommendation is offering to pick up bits of other local government areas (LGAs).” General Manager Peter Bascomb. “It was the Mayor’s suggestion.” Mayor Harrison. “It’s a recommendation that effectively came from Council, but that was the intent. You may like to suggest a change if you have a problem with that.” Cr Cockram. “Then I would like to float an amendment that takes that point out. How can we say we’re fit for the future when we’re picking up odds and sods, sight unseen, from other LGAs?” There was no seconder. Cr Hogarth-Boyd. “I reject the notion of challenging the umpire. We’re challenging the process which we had entered into in good faith.. We’ve spent many hours conducting surveys and collating data and came up with a workable solution. “Our submission has been rejected on the basis that we didn’t satisfy some amorphous criterion of Scale and Capacity.. “It is the will of our community that we stand alone and rejecting that will is neglectful. “This is not just about Bungendore, but Braidwood, Nerriga and Araluen and all the little places..” Cr France. “This is not so much about being fit for the future, but about local government and losing our local voice. “I can’t understand how IPART can come back and say two Councils that are already broken must merge to make one bigger Council that will be bigger broken.. “To say bigger is better is just not the case. In South Australia, a little shire called Walkerville demonstrated they could operate more efficiently by standing alone and doing joint ventures.. “We need to look at reform but that shouldn’t involve amalgamation or losing our local voice.” Cr Morrison [in reply]. “I agree with all that has been said [in favour of standing alone].. “Palerang has satisfied all of the criteria except ‘Scale and Capacity.’ IPART’s assessment does not recognise our true potential..” The amended motion was then put and carried. For: Crs Cockram, France, Graham, Harrison Hogarth-Boyd, Marshall and Morrison. Against: Cr Schweikert. Cr Hicks was absent.