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 (October 2015). 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

At the meeting it was RESOLVED that Council:

1.reject the flawed and 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:

a) does not endorse a merger with any neighbouring LGA;

b) 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;

c) has demonstrated scale and capacity through its own resources and through regional cooperation;

d) 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.

The report to council said “It is clear that the State is largely ignoring the 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 “economies of scale” argument for geographically large rural LGAs.” 

It also stated that “The NSW Government position and that presented in the IPART report is that the communities of Palerang and Queanbeyan would benefit from a merger of the two councils. In considering the community benefits and impacts of a merger, it was the opinion of both Palerang and Queanbeyan that the business case prepared by independent consultants did not demonstrate worthwhile benefit to either community, and thus rejects the State’s position.” 

Cr Graham said “This (decision) hasn’t come lightly, this is a quite studied and detailed assessment and I believe the councilors’ view validates the view of the majority of the residents of Palerang” 

Cr Schweikert opposed the recommendation saying “the umpire has blown the whistle. An independent review panel has said twice that we are not fit for the future. I have to take them by their word as the only thing we have been able to do is bump the rates up.  

Cr Marshall said “it would be negligent to rush something like this. It may be an imperfect approach but I am prepared to say no.”

Cr Hogarth Boyd said ‘I reject the notion about challenging the umpire – we are challenging the process. We have spent many hours on this and have come up with a workable solution that fits within the framework, ...It is a flawed assessment and to not accept our contributions is dismissing the views of the community and the efforts to participate in the process.” 

Cr France said “I agree – it’s not about being Fit for the Future, but about Local Government and losing your local voice. Forcing us to amalgamation is not the way to go, all it does is lose local voices.” 

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.

A report to Queanbeyan Council for the 11 November meeting suggests a submission on the following lines, “in the community’s interest’”: 

That Queanbeyan Council “1. Contest the scale and capacity threshold (based on other councils as ‘standalone’), but  notes Queanbeyan has budget and population scale and Palerang has geographic size.  The independent asset, service and financial sustainability reviews will further strengthen Council’s financial sustainability. 

2. Support a partition or boundary adjustment with Palerang and adjoining councils (nominate which LGAs), based on communities of interest and serviceability, or 

3. Support a merger on the basis it is clear community engagement would then take place via a Boundaries Commission, with a view to partition/adjust boundaries within approximately 2-3 years based on communities of interest and serviceability. 

4. Insist on grants being available for a forced merger or partitioned entity. 

5. Should a merger proceed: 

a. Reserve the right to negotiate additional financial assistance based on impacts on Queanbeyan CBD due to limited rationalisation in a merger. 

b. Insist on continuation and ownership of the combined LWUs in the new entity 

c. Insist on continuation of RMS contract and FAG grants at current (or greater) levels for minimum 5 years

d. Insist on the Palerang SRV proceeding to assist harmonisation/equity in rating 

e. Insist on cash reserves being held by the former entity to be expended for use in the area of that former entity

f. Request the Government signal its milestone expectations for what systems, process and finances should be migrated or merged in what timeframe.”