However, they are ahead in the psychological stakes, having convinced many the deal is sealed, causing people to fret and jostled as how to be divided, not why be divided. 

Their package of claims looks good; Merge and Save $19M, Freeze Rates, Cut Councillors, Repair More Roads, and benefits yet untold. Sounds great! Certainly creative. Even imaginative. But is it real, probably not. 

There’s a numeracy problem in the Premiers office. Councils caught up in his Mergerama have requested the hard numbers behind the big claims, yet none are forthcoming. Minister Toole asserts accountants KPMG have done the work, so trust them. And trust them we might, but for the fact that councils cannot reconcile the benefits they assert.

This Government has spent political capital on trying to bully through mergers, perhaps because the legislations says that one man, Mr Toole, can do anything he pleases with Local Governments. It’s that arrogance which is behind No, For and Against arguments presented. No debate. No independent financial details substantiating their benefit claims. No ‘fit’ alternatives to merger. Just catch phrases that don’t make sense.

Like, how do two so-called ‘unfit’ shires, become ‘fit’ by merging? That’s like saying if you owe $800 on one credit card, and $1,400 on another, if you put them on a new credit card, you won’t owe as much. Really? Is that what the merchant banker Premier is implying?

You can merge two overdrawn credit cards into one, but the debt doesn’t go away, and the banker that does that for you will get a new pound of flesh. In the case of the proposed mergers, will that really be higher rates? Lower services? More local government debt? Privatisation of Local Government functions? Sale of resident-paid infrastructure assets (like Water, Sewerage, Showgrounds, Yards), only to be charged for them again by new overseas owners? 

Local government mergers don’t guarantee economic prosperity. Many have failed. When they do, it is because of politicisation of the merger-promotion process and a falling down of rigorous financial modelling beforehand. 

Voters must demand a proper Detailed Due Diligence Assessment before the three largest enterprises in these shires are forced to merge; not afterwards. Could you imagine public companies being merged without Due Diligence, just on the gut feelings of the Directors? They’d be in gaol before the half-yearly report was issued. So on what responsible basis do these ministers approach the financial destinies of a half-billion dollars of publicly owned enterprises and their future financial obligations and returns. You and I, as the underwriters of debts of the council we reside in, must demand proper commercial procedural-care is taken and demonstrated? This is a matter of fiduciary accountability that is superior to the Minister’s legislated authority to do as he pleases. I’m sure courts would like to test that hypothesis. 

They’ve controlled the ‘debate’ by grooming the public to think the important matters are how we ‘feel’ about a merger or where a boundary should be. But we’re awaking to those diversions. The main game is about Land, Assets, Access to future property Rates (taxes), and Who Controls those. It has nothing to do with so-called communities of interest. 

Your council has made great strides in productivity gains and economic efficiencies since formation 10 years ago. For the past six years, it has delivered balanced budgets with only CPI rate rises. No neighbouring councils can make that same claim. It has made internal improvement, and already shares services with neighbouring councils. Financial outcomes have continuously improved, without surrendering your control to urbanites. 

This matter is more significant for Local economics and democratic representation, than the Premier’s absurd “fit” messaging. There are no sound reasons for Palerang shire not to continue to remain whole and independent. Not financial. Not societally. Not based on scale. Can Council improve? Yes, of course. 

Recently a Braidwood ‘elder’ wrote, “I realise much of Australia’s governance history could result in cynical distrust of politicians and currently I share the ‘a plague on both your houses’ disenchantment but . . . Oh dear.”

Every four years we Vote for our Local Government. But it’s at junctures like this we must ask, ‘Do we have a Local Government that represents us, or do we have a mock State department that organises us?’ How we respond to this bullying will determine the answer to that question for us and those who follow. 

There is no power or authority for Voters in cynicism or blind obedience. Only thinking, followed by engagement affects outcomes. When governments bully and don’t get it right, is when Voters have to get out of their chair, engage with the facts, and set the matter right. This is why I write today. 

Cr Richard Graham, Mulloon