Clarence Valley Council: when does a précis turn into an attempt to censor and distort?

In response to "So What": the face of not-so-good governance on the NSW North Coast.

The Clarence Valley community is entitled to be concerned in regard to the process adopted by the Clarence Valley Council to reduce public budget submissions to a précis form, then respond to the précis.

It is not unreasonable for our elected council representatives to be pressed for time, so one can understand the beneficial logic behind such process. Unfortunately it has not taken long for Council's unelected bureaucrats to exploit the foibles of this process.

It had been pointed out in previous budget submissions that Grafton came into amalgamation carrying a $1.2m deficit while Maclean came in with a surplus. But I could not find any evidence that Council had ever reconciled that deficit.

It is on public record that Council's rates and service expenditures are calculated on the percentage levels that existed at time of amalgamation. Consequently an unreconciled $1.2m deficit more than likely still exists, undetected and negatively influencing council finances.
Naturally I raised this query in my budget submission.

In its infinite wisdom, administration responded that the deficit had been offset by:-

a) Purchase of sections of Stage 2 Yamba Bypass (est. $1m)
b) Purchase of open space at Townsend (est $216k)

I pointed out in my subsequent budget submission that a) and b) are debts and when paid appreciate in value generating direct/indirect revenues for Council. Therefore a debt cannot reconcile/offset a deficit which is an imbalance in council ledgers and continues until reconciled.

Embarrassed by its faux pas, administration reduced my submission to précis form, to read:-

"Concern that the issue of the GCC bringing a $1.2m deficit into amalgamation while the MSC brought in a surplus has not been adequately answered."

Administration then boldly answered its (misinterpreted) précis:-

"Amalgamation occurred on 25-2-04. This response is written on 21 June 2010 and it is "so what".

These are public monies administration are mismanaging. To properly reconcile this deficit, Grafton rates should have been increased in line with its service expenditures or, its service expenditures should have been reduced in line with its income.
As neither was done, Grafton has continued to live beyond its means at the expense of the rest of the shire.

If these self-serving unelected bureaucrats can be indicted for their inept administration, then they must also stand indicted for their self-indulgent and less than totally frank integrity, ethics and moral values.

Their contemptuous disregard for the community consultation process undermines public confidence and erodes public trust as energetically as it mutilates democracy.

Ray Hunt
Yamba

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents.Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

Clarence Valley Local Government Election 2012: Meet the real Andrew Baker

On 14 August 2012 The Daily Examiner published a letter to the editor by Judith Melville of Yamba which called on all seventeen candidates at the 8 September 2012 Clarence Valley local government election to answer seven questions before polling day.

The seven questions are set out below along with the personal response of one of those candidates, property and land developer Andrew Baker of Maclean.

This candidate clearly indicates that he will not give an undertaking to protect the Clarence River system from over exploitation. Further he gives no undertaking to support the stand of local communities in relation to high risk mining in the Clarence Valley or within the river catchment area.

Mr. Baker also implied that he does not belong to any interest group - yet last year the Maclean Chamber of Commerce successfully nominated him as its preferred delegate on Clarence Valley Council's Business Rate Review Advisory Committee.

Finally, he mocks the idea that climate change is a real and present problem facing Valley residents and ratepayers and, flatly refuses to rule out having private meetings with land developers and mining corporations if he becomes a councillor. The latter refusal clearly placing him at risk of breaching Clause 9.7 of the Code of Conduct if he is elected to Clarence Valley Council.

Q1: If elected will you oppose any move by state or federal governments to further dam and divert water from the Clarence River catchment, including the granting of water extraction rights for mining operations or other large-volume water users?

Andrew Baker: Should such a proposal become real, I will look at the merits and disadvantages of the specific proposal before attempting to arrive at a position. To do otherwise is in my view both lazy and dangerous.

Q2: If elected will you oppose coal seam gas and antimony mining, as well as any open-cut mining within the Clarence River catchment?
Andrew Baker:  My consideration of any issue that requires a decision from me will commence with an open mind and NO pre-commitment to applicant or interested person/group.

Q3: If you undertake to oppose such water diversion/extraction or mining will you publicly oppose any political party policy which supports it, even to the point of repudiating the policies of a party of which you are a member?
Andrew Baker:  Not really applicable as I have no undertaking to give in advance of proper consideration. I have no party membership. I have no interest group to answer to so my considerations will always be open-minded to the best of my ability.

Q4: Do you accept that human-induced global warming and subsequent climate change is real?
Andrew Baker:  I accept that a great fear of these issues is real. I’m still waiting for my great fear of the similarly frightening Y2K Bug to subside before I adopt any new fears.

Q5: Are you willing to adopt realistic, long-term mitigation or adaptation measures to support Clarence Valley communities in the face of increased severe weather events, continuous coastal/estuary erosion and possible loss of agricultural productivity?
Andrew Baker:   The political temptation is to answer with some nice-sounding motherhood statement testifying to my overwhelming love of all motherhood questions. However, my answer is; I will consider, to the best of my ability, any specific proposal for mitigation or adaption measures on the merits of the proposal. My consideration will include at least receiving advice of the likely cost, likely benefit, ability of the residents and ratepayers (or others) to pay, and the risks of doing or not doing the proposal.

Q6: Will you give an undertaking to resist any move by the NSW Government to subject the Clarence Valley to yet another forced amalgamation in order to form an even larger local government area not centred within the valley?
Andrew Baker:  I am unimpressed with the benefits of the most recent amalgamation. While I am aware of some benefits from that amalgamation, the Clarence Valley has yet to have Council leadership capable of ensuring the financial efficiencies and Increased levels of management professionalism so willingly held up as great benefits prior to the amalgamated Council. For now, I am opposed to further amalgamation but not to the extent of denying an future possibility it the right circumstances.

Q7: Can you assure Clarence Valley residents and ratepayers that as a councillor you will never meet privately with any representative or agent of a land/property developer, mining corporation or energy company or give a general/specific undertaking that you will look favourably on their proposals or will further their consultation or negotiations with any tier of government, other businesses or communities in Northern NSW?  

Andrew Baker:   Such an undertaking is impossible to genuinely give. Or honour. Should it be possible to give or honour such undertaking, I wouldn’t give it anyway. While I have no doubts about my integrity and my ability to deal with people at face value, I do understand the great fear within a few in our community. I’m not about to give some silly undertakings simply to attempt to calm the raging fears of a few. Similarly, I will give no undertakings to not meet with any person or group. I enjoy gaining considerable insight and perspective from a wide and sometimes odd variety of people.

The Lower Clarence is not happy

The Daily Examiner 21 and 26 June 2013:

See you at the next council meeting
In Australia we always hope that our elected representatives will actively participate in community consultation and ensure that there is confidence in their decision making processes... not so with the five Clarence Valley councillors who have used their weight of numbers to force their outrageous four year rating plan on this Valley.
Despite many invitations to share their wisdom via the local newspaper, Cr Margaret McKenna contributed one half-hearted letter to the editor and then refused to respond further to questions as to how council can propose a four year rating plan with no knowledge of future rate pegging limits or land revaluations... and she has been the only councillor who has tried to justify their actions via this media.
The CVC-convened public meetings in Iluka, Yamba and Maclean to discuss the council's 2013/14 operational plan were generally shunned by the majority of the five Grafton councillors. However Cr Challacombe did attend the Maclean meeting and he made what is possibly the most revealing comment since this rating issue surfaced. Cr Challacombe said that while we all pay our taxes, the majority of the money will always be spent in Sydney and while none of us believe that is fair it is a similar situation in the Clarence Valley with rate monies collected from all areas being spent in Grafton. What he effectively said is that since amalgamation Grafton has become our capitol city and therefore all rate monies spent in Grafton become beneficial to all ratepayers no matter how far they live from the capitol.
This also means that there is no point assessing where CVC spends money on services or projects because all expenditure in Grafton is for the common good and it is only expenditure in Glenreagh, Ulmarra, Maclean, Yamba etcetera that can be considered localised.
I trust that Cr Challacombe will never again criticise NSW State government decisions to cut spending in this region so long as they spend the money in Sydney.
I attended the CVC Operational Plan public meetings in Yamba and Maclean and council professional staff made it absolutely clear that they had recommended that council not change the 2012/13 rating structure and that they would not defend the "political" decision to replace that structure by the elected councillors.
Next Tuesday the council meets at the Maclean chambers to formally adopt the 2013/14 rating structure. I hope that many local people attend that meeting to witness the outcome.

Bill Day

Yamba

Rates go awry
Self interests, parochialism and cronyism have always been part of the mix in local government. But the reasons given for those "up river" five for shifting Grafton's rate burden to low income earners of the lower Clarence without additional services to pay for Grafton's prolific services it could not afford, certainly puts them in that mix.
The Mayor Cr Williamson asks, "tell me one thing council does in Grafton that they don't do in Maclean?" Cr Williamson knows that they don't enjoy a higher income that Grafton enjoys, but still came into forced amalgamation with a surplus, demonstrating it could pay for its services even with a lower median rate. What's more they don't enjoy two ratepayer funded aquatic centres in close proximity to each other. Nor two libraries, an art gallery, a second airstrip and many "sports specific" sports grounds.
Cr Howe has reportedly referred to the two $3m sports centres in Maclean and Yamba since forced amalgamation. But they pale into insignificance to the $4m upgrade to Fisher Park, Ellem oval, McKittrick Park, Hawthorne Park, See Park, Pioneer Park, Corcoran Park, $1.3m revitalisation south Grafton and an $8m second library in Grafton.
Cr McKenna who lives and works in south Grafton is the recipient of a $1.3m makeover, nevertheless believes her rates should be shifted to the lower Clarence which didn't receive a similar benefit.
Cr Challacombe reportedly admits to disparities in service provision but says "the facilities in Grafton are for all." He ignores that it is some two hours to and from Grafton by car let alone a bus and many cannot afford it.
Their self serving incoherent use of the truth was further advanced when they thwarted a council resolution having staff prepare expenditure by locality report at a workshop meeting on May 14, which would have been in the whole valley's interests.
Having encouraged a forced amalgamation to save its economic future and now using its numbers in the council to serve its own parochial interest, Grafton is playing a very dangerous divisive game. Over the years, Grafton has been a graveyard for business and commerce and is dependant upon new monies from outside its community.
The Regional Industry and Economic Plan (RIEP) believes that only 65% of jobs come from population driven sectors and about 10% of jobs from the construction sector. But the balance is in the exporting sectors particularly tourism. No matter what Grafton spends on waterfront precincts and recreational facilities, it cannot compete with Port Macquarie, Coffs Ballina or even the lower Clarence for that recreational tourist dollar. However that has not been the case with the lower Clarence which has continued its economic growth while Grafton has faltered.
The lower Clarence has available to it far more competitive services; airport, hospital and commerce just up the highway and the bottom line is Grafton needs the lower Clarence far more than the lower Clarence needs Grafton. It is now a question as to what extent the lower Clarence will spend that travelling time heading north instead of toward Grafton

Ray Hunt

Yamba

Rates shock

Hello Richie. I would like to guess the secret sound.

Is it the sound of a pensioner falling over at their letterbox when they open their rate notice.

Frank Bonfanti

Gulmarrad

The Daily Examiner Page One 26 June 2013:

In debate, Cr Howe said these changes would unite the Clarence Valley.
"This is not about Grafton, there is no gang of five," he said.
This comment was followed by such jeers from the gallery that Cr Williamson stopped the meeting and called for the public to show respect.

The Daily Examiner online 26 June 2013:

The council did not adopt a rating structure for the next four years as Cr Baker lead motion against defining the rating policy so far into the future.
"I put to this meeting that the motion while ever it attempts to set the rate beyond this year is unlawful," Cr Baker said.
And while the legality remained a point of division the councillors agreed with sentiment and limited the changes to this financial year.

 UPDATE

The Daily Examiner 27 June 2013:

Each property in the Clarence Valley is valued by the NSW Valuer General.

The value is then multiplied by a cents-in-the-dollar rate.

Added to the cents-in-the-dollar total is a base amount which everyone in a given area pays.

If a base rate is not in place the other system is to have a minimum rate.

Under this system if the cents-in-the-dollar rate total was less than the minimum then the minimum became the actual bill…..

In the case of Maclean residences a minimum rate was previously in place.

So a property with a land value of $60,000 would have returned a cents-in-the-dollar value of $420.

The minimum in Mac- lean used to be $474 so the bill would have been $474.

Under the new system the council has introduced a base, which everyone pays.

The cents-in-the-dollar value for the $60,000 Maclean property would be $304.94 under the new system but added to this is the new $260 base.

This means the bill for the property in question rises to $564.94, an increase of just less than 25%.

Interestingly, under the new structure, people who own a property worth more than about $140,000, in Maclean, will see a reduction in their bill.

For Farmland properties the opposite is true.

The increase in farmland rates was achieved by increasing the cents-in-the-dollar rate and the more valuable your property, the more your rates will increase.

The increase will be more than 3.4% for farms worth more than about $600,000.

In out-of-town areas the minimum and the cents-in-the-dollar rate has increased.

If your bill last year was $458 or less, it will be $474 next year and if your property is worth more than $107,000 your rates will increase by 6.9%.

In coastal villages bills will increase by 9.36% unless your land is worth less than about $110,000.

Lawrence and Wooloweyah can both expect decreases in their rates of about 30% as they have been moved out of urban categories.

Yamba residents can expect 10% increases across the board.

And finally residents in Grafton should expect a rise of no more than 3%.  

Australian Federal Election 2016: are Baird's forced council amalgamations hurting Team Turnbull's chances in NSW?

About 27% of the NSW population lives in one of the nineteen new councils created yesterday. Another 21% lives in the nine proposed councils which will be created once the current court action is resolved. If Newcastle is also merged and its council sacked, that will be a majority of the NSW population living in an area with no elected local representation. [The Tally Room, 13 May 2016]

Google Images March 2016

NSW Premier Mike Baird has been careful over the years to position himself as being in sympathy with the aims and major policies of the Abbott-Turnbull Government and, in its turn this federal government has supported his slashing of the number of local government areas which will see an est. 48 per cent of the state’s population being without elected councillors for at least twelve months.

That's up to 3.66 million individuals living in households who may be more than a little cranky with the Lib-Nats for what has happened to their local council and approximately another 3.97 million people living in local government areas that are in the firing line the next time Premier Baird decides to whittle away at the most immediate tier of democracy in Australia.

Coalition MPs hoping to retain their seats come 2 July must be hoping that none of them read the newspaper over breakfast (or click onto social media) between now and then.

How the NSW council amalgamation issue played out in mainstream media thus far......

The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 March 2016:

At Liberal party functions in his seat of Wentworth in Sydney's east, Malcolm Turnbull is fond of introducing his staff member, Sally Betts as the most powerful person in Sydney's east. It usually gets a chuckle, particularly since he became Prime Minister.

Ms Betts is the grandmotherly figure who works two days a week in his electorate office while also serving as Waverley Council's mayor……

If Betts had not got on board with the Baird government's amalgamations push, the state government would have faced a solid wall of opposition from Liberal councils. Instead Betts and her Liberal counterpart in Randwick offered the first chink in council resistance, giving the state government cause to claim the councils were divided on the issue……

Daily Telegraph, 9 May 2016:

Tony Abbott has thrown his support behind the formation of one northern beaches council under Premier Mike Baird’s amalgamation reforms.

“I can see the arguments both ways. I would probably lean towards a whole of peninsula council if we are going down the amalgamation path,” he said.

“It’s a question of balancing out the local attachment with the need for efficient service delivery.”….

However once Malcolm Turnbull called the double dissolution election for 2 July this year matters became more complicated and federal influence on the Baird Government more obvious.

The Australian

12 May 2016:

The state government initially put forward 35 amalgamations in what would have been the biggest reform of local government in NSW since 1948.

But it is likely that cabinet will drop some of the proposals, with suggestions that the process has been influenced by political considerations, including opposition from local MPs and concerns about whether they will affect the chances of federal MPs.

After state cabinet considers the mergers, a special partyroom meeting will be held to endorse them…..

13 May 2016:

But the state government has placed a potential bomb under the Coalition’s campaign by proceeding with mergers in a number of marginal seats, including the bellwether Eden-Monaro, and ­Dobell and Robertson on the NSW Central Coast.

In Eden-Monaro, held by the Liberals’ Peter Hendy on a narrow margin, the government has, among other mergers, approved the joining of the rural Palerang council with the Queanbeyan town council.

Former Palerang mayor Peter Harrison says his former council is a poor fit with Queanbeyan given the different demography. He says locals fear their rates will be consumed by Queanbeyan and that there will be less money for maintenance of local roads.

“Palerang is quite unique. The majority of people live in rural residential areas. It does not have urban centres,” Mr Harrison said.

The Baird government dumped a proposal to merge the Kiama and Shoalhaven councils, affecting the marginal seat of Gilmore, held by the Liberals’ Ann Sudmalis, and another affecting the seat of Macquarie, held by the Liberals’ Louise Markus, after a government-appointed delegate recommended against it.

It ignored its own proposal to merge Tamworth and Walcha councils in New England, where Mr Joyce is battling former independent MP Tony Windsor.

Deputy Premier Troy Grant said he had two calls from Mr Joyce about the amalgamations, but denied he had an influence.

Delegate Amanda Chadwick recommended Walcha and Tamworth councils merge, and the proposal was supported by the Boundaries Commission.

Mr Baird denied that the decision not to proceed with some of the mergers was driven by political considerations, saying it was purely a matter of what was in the interest of ratepayers.

The mergers will reduce the number of councils in NSW by 37. The number of councils in Sydney is to be slashed from 43 to 25. Yesterday the government sacked all councillors in merged councils, appointing ­administrators in their place, and delayed local elections in ­affected areas until September next year.

Mr Baird said he had “absolute confidence” the mergers would result in better outcomes for ratepayers.

But the Baird government limited the financial benefits of the mergers by demanding the new councils not sack any workers, except executives. Employees in towns smaller than 5000 are permanently protected…..

News.com.au, 17 May 2016:

A few months ago people were talking up Mike Baird’s personal popularity, saying it could soften any swing towards Labor in NSW including in the eight marginal seats of Barton, Eden-Monaro, Dobell, Reid, Banks, Page, Gilmore and Lindsay.

But that was until the NSW government announced plans on Thursday to sack councils across the state and create 19 new ones……

Then the ugly underbelly of Mike Baird’s governance style was exposed for all to see.

The Sydney Morning Herald

1 June 2014:

In a potentially explosive development for the Baird government, the Land and Environment Court has ordered it to provide documents about the role KPMG played in implementing the council amalgamation agenda.

Strathfield Council and others are alleging a serious misrepresentation by the Baird government after discovering that KPMG has been involved in devising the merger proposals as early as July 2015 – before the government announced it was proceeding with forced amalgamations – yet it was deemed the independent arbiter of the financial benefits of the mergers.

A document seen by The Sydney Morning Herald entitled "Options Analysis: Local Reform" and marked cabinet-in-confidence was dated July 8, 2015.

"OLG [Office of Local Government] has commissioned KPMG to support development of a robust evidence base to support the NSW government's Fit for the Future agenda," the document says.

This was well before the government announced the results of the Fit for the Future review by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which assessed the health of councils to either stand alone or merge. It was also before the government announced its plans to force mergers.

In a press release issued on the day the government announced its preferred mergers in January 2016, Premier Mike Baird and the Minister for Local Government Paul Toole described the role of KPMG, which calculated the savings of each merger, as "independent"……

2 June 2016:

The state government has defended the independence of the consulting firm whose sums were the basis for its controversial push to slash Sydney councils.

Accounting and consulting giant KPMG, whose figures have been used to justify the government's controversial merger policies, donated about $100,000 to the NSW Liberal Party shortly before the elections that brought the Coalition to power in 2011.

The firm was also paid about $870,000 to audit Liberal Party accounts in 2015…..

"How can you claim KPMG's report on your forced council mergers is independent," asked the opposition spokesman on Planning and Infrastructure, Michael Daley, in question time in the NSW Parliament on Thursday.

The attack comes a day after the Land and Environment Court demanded the government produce documents relating to KPMG's modelling, which has been central to making the case for the government's council merger policies.

That resulted from a legal challenge to the merger of Strathfield Council and two others in the inner west, which revealed KPMG had been working on merger proposals before the government announced it was proceeding with the policy.

"The lack of independence of KPMG has always been a central part of our case," said the lawyer for Strathfield Council, Tim Robertson.

Employer groups put pressure on Turnbull Government to stifle union mergers

In 2017 members of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) and the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA) considered a proposal to amalgamate into one union or alternatively to amalgamate only the CFMEU and the MUA.

The ballot was conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) and results declared on 28 November 2017. There appears to have been no irregularities affecting the ballot outcome.

The Fair Work Commission handed down a decision giving effect to the CFMEU and MUA amalgamation on 27 March 2018.

Employer groups Australian Mines and Metals Association (AMMA) and Master Builders Australia (MBA) are now appealing the Commission’s decision.

The Australian, 9 March 2018, p.2.

Employers have taken legal ­action to try to overturn the Fair Work Commission decision ­approving the merger of the construction and maritime unions.

The Australian Mines and Metals Association and Master Builders Australia yesterday ­appealed the decision to a ­commission full bench.

The employers are also seeking a stay of the decision, which, if granted, would mean the merger would not proceed from its scheduled date of March 27.

The AMMA and MBA say the commission decision contained errors of laws and should not have approved the amalgamation.

Maritime Union of Australia national secretary Paddy Crumlin said the unions would vigorously oppose the appeal and defend the rights of workers to have freedom of association.

“Our members have overwhelmingly supported this amalgamation (with the CFMEU) and it should be up to them to decide whether they merge,” he said.

Former employment minister Eric Abetz welcomed the ­appeal, saying the government should intervene in the proceedings in support of the employer application. He said the government should move urgently to pass laws subjecting union ­mergers to a public interest test.

Workplace Relations Minister Craig Laundy said the government would resume talks with Senate crossbenchers in a bid to win support for the bill, which has yet to be put to a vote.

AMMA is lobbying for an amendment to the bill designed to have the public interest test take affect before March 27 but Mr Laundy declined to express a view on the proposed amendment.

The Australian, 8 March 2018:

Employers have accused the Turnbull government of being missing in action after the Coalition failed to pass laws subjecting union mergers to a public interest test.

Workplace Relations Minister Craig Laundy said today the government would resume talks with Senate crossbenchers in a bid to win support for the bill, which has yet to be put to a Senate vote.

 “The Ensuring Integrity Bill remains a priority for the Government, but because of Labor’s opposition we need the support of the crossbench,’’ he said.

“Despite what has been said in recent days, the Government simply didn’t have the numbers to pass the Bill. I am reaching out to the crossbench to see if that has changed.

And you thought local government amalgamation news couldn't get any worse......

The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 March 2016:

NSW councillors have been told to reapply for their jobs, as the NSW government lays the groundwork to terminate existing councils as early as next month and begin amalgamations.

On Thursday, all councillors received a letter from the Minister for Local Government Paul Toole, telling them he was considering interim arrangements for councils until elections are held after September. He said he was looking at options of a single person acting as administrator of a new merged council, or the continuation in office of some or all of the councillors in the new larger council area.

Councillors have been ordered to  submit an expression of interest by April 15, explaining why they would be suitable for the interim council or why they are qualified to act as an administrator.

General managers and mayors are also required to apply for the jobs in the new larger councils.

This is despite the Boundaries Commission still having to report on the merger proposals, most of which are being resisted by existing councils.

Most public inquiries have finished and the delegates for each council area are preparing their reports. They will then go to the minister and to the boundaries commission. The minister then makes a decision to accept or reject the finding on the merger. But given this is the minister's blueprint, most councils expect him to forge ahead with mergers, possibly as soon at the end of April…..

To date a search of the NSW Boundaries Commission website does not list Tweed Shire Council, Ballina Shire Council, Byron Shire Council, Clarence Valley Council, Lismore City Council, Richmond Valley Council and Kyogle Council (which comprise the NSW Northern Rivers region) as being affected by this round of local government amalgamations.

However, it would be foolish of local communities to ignore the fact that some Northern Rivers mayors and general managers would favour amalgamation - seeing it as the road to increased personal incomes, greater power and wider political influence - and indeed may be quietly indicating to the Baird Government that amalgamation into a larger local government area is their preference.

The Clarence Valley has been down this track before with dissembling state governments and naive mayors

The Daily Examiner 6 November 2014:

A "JOINT organisation" will pool the resources and bargaining power of Clarence Valley Regional Council with three surrounding local governments.

Mayor Richie Williamson was adamant the new structure was not an amalgamation and said Clarence Valley, Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca councils would continue to exist as separate entities.

"In fact, it is the exact opposite. This is not about amalgamation in any form," he said.

"It's about a group of councils working in a regional framework."

A $5 million funding pool has been allocated to forming 15 "joint organisations" across New South Wales as part of the State Government's "Fit for the Future" local government reforms.

There have been suggestions the new organisations were a ploy to eventually replace "left-leaning" Regional Development Australia bodies in New South Wales.

Cr Williamson said he had not been told anything to that effect.

"We actually don't know much of substance about it yet. The make-up and its role are up for some strong discussion," he said.

"We need to ensure it's not simply adding another layer of bureaucracy….

In the 1990s local government councils in the Clarence Valley began cooperative management in areas of mutual interest through the Clarence Valley Local Government Committee, then a limited voluntary merger occurred in 2000 before the then NSW Labor Government forced wider amalgamation into the current Clarence Valley Council in 2004 with consequential diminution of good governance and transparency.

It is foolish to suppose that in the eyes of the current NSW Coalition Government the creation of a so called ‘joint organisation’ is not broadly comparable with the former Clarence Valley Local Government Committee (used to ‘soften’ local government opposition to merger proposals) and, therefore a possible precursor to the creation of a super council centred in one of the two largest population clusters, Coffs Harbour City or Tweed Shire.

It is equally foolish to believe that the $300,000 which this organisation would receive from the Baird Government would mitigate increased costs to Clarence Valley, Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca councils flowing from the so-called ‘joint organisation' containing four local government areas with few historical or contemporary common interests.

The Baird Government makes it clear that once the $300,000 is spent no more state funding will be forthcoming. Direct and ongoing costs to be covered by member councils of a joint organisation include employment of an Executive Officer as well as accommodation and administrative costs, where not provided ‘in house’ by a member council.

Make no mistake, the joint organisation covering the four local government areas mentioned by Richie Williamson is highly likely to be just a pilot program for the final larger joint organisation which would start in the southern Great Lakes region and end at the NSW-Qld border – covering roughly half of the NSW coastline by 2016.

At its most basic the entire process is yet another scheme aimed at continuing cost shifting by the state government and, this map gives some indication of how rural and regional super council boundaries might look if the Liberal-Nationals Coalition gets its as yet unspoken wish:

Map in Fit for the Future: Joint Organisations, September 2014

The NSW Minister for Local Government and Nationals MLA for Bathurst who is progressing this scheme is the well-named Paul Toole.

Background

NSW Government, Office of Local Government, Fit for the Future: Joint Organisations, September 2014

Clarence Valley North-South Divide throws up yet another letter

Forced local government amalgamation in the Clarence Valley, followed by an [expletive deleted] administration period from which the council is still recovering, fractured any hope of a united population and the current set of shire councillors is doing its best to further entrench and widen that fracture.

Nowhere is that rift more obvious than in the letters-to-the-editor section of local newspapers.

Here is one of the latest published in The Daily Examiner on 4 June 2013:

It would be nice if the people of Grafton, who have such a down on the Lower Clarence would check their facts. Yes, we do have two swimming pools, but my older children learnt to swim in the old quarry pool before the rock pool was built in about 1967/68. We (the people of Yamba) began to work for a heated community pool only to have a newcomer to town who wanted a hydro pool at the Maclean Hospital, so our efforts went to help her, then Maclean pool was enlarged from 25m to 50m, so we helped again.   Then we went flat out to raise funds for our heated pool and much volunteer labour went into that pool. As regards to our developments having proper footpaths and guttering, well I think Maclean Council had much to do with that. It did not cost $1 million dollars to fix our rock pool, not nearly as much as the South Grafton pool. Please think before your next rave. I have a little knowledge of local government as my late husband was a Maclean councillor for eight and a half years. The extra six months was to fight against amalgamation - but we lost.   Marie Rheinberger, Yamba

Shots exchanged across the Clarence Valley Divide

Over the time since European explorers first set foot in the region the Clarence Valley on the NSW North Coast developed a natural social divide, based on both geographic features and community of interest.

Despite forced local government amalgamation in 2004 this divide continues and shots are frequently heard coming from both sides of the barricades. Never more so than when someone mentions land rates or council finances, as this exchange in The Daily Examiner letters to the editor page demonstrates.

Clarence Valley Council (both as Council in the Chamber and as Management) has frequently entrenched this divide by its own behaviour and decisions.

Service costs

BILL DAY has been conservative in stating: "The CVC has a blowout of nearly $1m in its maintenance budget" (DEX, April 20).

Council has been reducing its maintenance costs for some years.

But at whose expense?

Unlike Grafton's plush Memorial Park and river frontage, Yamba's river frontage adjacent to its CBD is compromised by an unpretentious caravan park that responsibly generates some $1.5m revenue, in addition to its rates, to pay for services and facilities and their maintenance.

Iluka's caravan park generates $lm. Brooms Head $lm. Minnie Water $3000, Wooli $2000 to pay for their primitive services.

However, included in Grafton's proposed waterfront precinct, is the upgrading of its streetscape, night lighting and building infrastructure, including the upgrading of Memorial Park.

Further, an abundance of services and facilities, such as sandy beaches, pergola climbers, garden furniture, paveways, boardwalks, boat ramps, staircases, sculptured earth terraces,etc totalling some $6m.

All this is prone to regular flooding, incurring extensive annual maintenance costs, including insurance (if able to be insured).

There are merits for a waterfront precinct, but with such opulence?

Recently the general manager, Stuart McPherson, applied to increase our rates above the pegged rate increase, on the basis of council's diminished capacity to finance capital works.

He stated: "We have about 50 community halls, community centres and library buildings. In the recent past we have been able to finance only modest maintenance and renewal programs and yet these places are seen as emblematic of village life and central to the cohesion of the communities. From the councillors' tours held in these halls, the age of the fittings and fixtures and the good condition relatively of the buildings is a testament to the community groups who maintain them. These groups are worthy of more support from council." (Council meeting March 23,2010, Att. c, p3).

The Clarence Valley has one of the lowest incomes per capita in NSW and we have simply got to come to terms with that fact and Iive within our means.

There was a time the Lower Clarence enjoyed free use of its sports fields, as its rates were sufficient to cover their costs.

Since forced amalgamation our kids cannot afford the fees now implemented for no other reason than Grafton charged fees to use its sports fields.

So, we should do the same.

The reason Grafton charged fees was because its rates were insufficient to cover the costs of its prolific services.

If council can afford a Grafton waterfront precinct, it can afford an adequate transparent financial records system that shows the costs of services provided to communities.

RAY HUNT
Yamba
[The Daily Examiner 30 April 2011]

Misleading claim on parks income

It would appear from previous letters to the editor that correspondent Ray Hunt is a keen observer of the business of the Clarence Valley Council and its affairs,

It seems he pores over every minute financial detail of the council.

This is not a bad thing, in fact it is healthy in a democracy. But given his apparent deep understanding of council finances, I was surprised to read his letter (DEX, April S0) citing the amount of money the Clarence Valley Council makes from coastal caravan parks.

For Mr Hunt's benefit, the Clarence Valley Council makes absolutely zero dollars out of caravan parks on coastal reserves.

These parks are not owned by the Clarence Valley Council. They are reserves and are owned by the taxpayers of NSW.

All money raised from these parks must be reinvested in reserves. If any of this money goes into council finances, it is getting it by dubious means.

When councillors consider matters relating to the reserves, they have to take off their council hats, they lose their council titles (ie councillor) and sit as Mr, Mrs, Miss or Ms and operate under the Crown Lands Act.

I hope this was a simple misunderstanding by Mr Hunt and not an attempt to have people believe the coastal communities were propping up the Clarence Valley Council's coffers to support his cheaper rates for a Yamba campaign.

G. GRAYNDLER
South Grafton
[The Daily Examiner 5 May 2011]

CVC does not own coastal caravan parks

The letter of G. Grayndler, South Grafton (DEX, May 5) completely misses the point.

With his smug vituperative falsely accusing me of “citing the amounts of money the CVC makes from (owning) coastal caravan parks.

Sorry to disappoint G. Grayndler.

I am aware, as is everyone else, including the local galah at the Grafton pet shop, that the CVC does not own coastal caravan parks, but simply manages them pursuant to Section 95 Crown Lands Act.

Like other caravan parks, the $1.5m revenue from Yamba’s caravan park pays for facilities and services on coastal reserves within the Clarence Reserve trust, relieving the burdensome obligations otherwise placed on council’s rates revenue.

G. Grayndler expresses concern that these trust revenues must be kept separate and says “if any of this money goes into council finances, it is getting it by dubious means”.

That being the case, perhaps G. Grayndler might like to explain why I was the only one to complain to ICAC that council staff were using financial codes in their recommendations to have councillors approve CCRT expenditures on council facilities (Item 14.191/09 Meeting 9-2-10). And why Councillor Toms failed to get a seconder in her motion to investigate council’s past records (Item 14.191/09 Meeting 9-2-10).

But the point I made in my letter (DEX, April 30) and overlooked by G. Grayndler was the difference in fiscal responsibility between the use of Yamba’s river frontage adjacent to its CBD being compromised by an unpretentious caravan park that relieve the burden otherwise placed on rate revenues.

Compare Grafton’s waterfront precinct on its river frontage adjacent to its CBD, with its abundance of opulent facilities amounting to $6m, prone to regular flooding, and irresponsibly incurring massive maintenance strain on an already stretched maintenance budget.

G. Grayndler might like to explain why those village ratepayers bereft of basic services should pay for such opulence, or why those fiscally responsible communities like Yamba should pay for such opulence.

Grafton has no one to blame for its high rates but itself.

It put its rates up to pay for its prolific services.

The Lower Clarence on the other hand recognised its low income per capita and adopted a low rate structure and responsibly lived within its means.

It is not a matter of increasing rates; it’s a matter of reducing Grafton’s services and then reducing its rates.

RAY HUNT
Yamba
[The Daily Examiner 13 May 2011]

Is 'The Daily Examiner' the Voice of the Clarence Valley?

The less than totally frank account of Clarence Valley Council's 2009/10 rate structure by the Grafton-based news publication, The Daily Examiner, casts serious doubt on its claim that it is the voice of the Clarence Valley.

For the second year in succession Clarence Valley Council has reduced Grafton's rate levies, leaving ratepayers in the rest of the shire to make up the service cost difference.

But instead of recognising this burden, The Daily Examiner reported on a move to "ease the burden of Grafton and Junction Hill ratepayers..." claiming "Their rates remain the highest in the valley" [DE 8.5.09].

Were they?

Unfortunately this Grafton-based news publication omitted from its list Grafton's average rate, despite giving the average rates of all the other centres of population within the Clarence Valley for 2009/10:-
Farmland avg rate $1036.71
Coastal villages avg res rate $992.23
Yamba/Wooloweyah avg res rate $960.48
Iluka avg res rate $738.65
Maclean/Townsend avg res rate $681.59

Gulmarrad/Woombah etc avg res rate $671.14
Lawrence avg res rate $641.69

The truth is the average Grafton rate is $879.14 and that certainly does not "remain the highest in the valley".
In fact perusal of Clarence Valley Council's past rate structures show that they have never had the highest average rates in the valley.

A news publication with any integrity would have included the average residential rate in Grafton along with the rest of the list provided by Clarence Valley Council.

Therefore any claim by The Daily Examiner that it is the voice of the Clarence Valley must be greeted with scepticism.

The subject of Grafton's rates is not new to The Daily Examiner.

Prior to forced local government amalgamation, The Daily Examiner's 30th November 2001 headline read "COUNCIL CRISIS" reporting Grafton City Council's spending commitment blowout had reduced its working capital from $500,000 to $32,000.

On the 18th June 2003 The Daily Examiner 's headline "Hip pocket nerve" reported Grafton City Council as signing off on a rate hike of 3.25% above the pegged rate 3.60 per cent to fund its lavish abundance of services.
By that time Grafton City Council already had the second highest average rate ($662.00) of local government areas in the region and this further increase above the pegged rate propelled it to the top.
Maclean Shire Council's average rate at that time was lower at $552.00.

Grafton City Council had no-one to blame for its high level of rates but itself.
It had the opportunity to reduce its level of services in line with its income, but chose instead to increase its rates.

However despite its increase in rates, its auditors reported that Grafton City Council was still unable to meet its massive service costs and after raiding its internal reserves of some $900,000 it came into forced amalgamation $412,000 in deficit leaving the Maclean Shire Council surpluses to subsidise it.

But not a word of this situation from the supposed voice of the Clarence Valley, the Grafton-based Daily Examiner's sabres were silent.

The amalgamated Clarence Valley Council's subsequent budgets reveal a rates increase for all population centres except Grafton with no additional services included.
While Grafton received a less proportionate increase with no decrease in services.

The Daily Examiner's omission of Grafton's average rate from its article of the 8th May 2009 and its incorrect claim that Grafton rates "remain the highest in the valley" was not just a failure to be totally frank with its Clarence Valley readers, it left an obvious impression that it is parochially biased and is pushing its own agenda.

As the only daily news publication in the Clarence Valley, The Daily Examiner must surely have an obligation to act responsibly, report facts accurately, be impartial and display the utmost integrity.
Otherwise it has no right to refer to itself as The Voice of the Clarence Valley.

RAY HUNT
Yamba

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.