Just when we thought the matter of mergers was mute ...
Just when the Community Centre was booked for a Septermber Council election ...
Out comes the blender from the cupboard and mergers are back on the table.
Gloucester Shire Council (population 5064) expressed its preference to stand alone - but indicated that if a merger was to be considered then it preferred a 3-way merger with Taree (population 48941) and Great Lakes (population 36499).
This "indication" was enough for the Local Government Minister (Paul Toole MP) to make a proposal to merge these three councils into one new local government area.
Of these three councils only Great Lakes was assessed as fit for the future.
Great Lakes was seeking a cumulative rate variation of 10.3% over three years. Gloucester was proposing 36.6% over three years and Taree 47.2% over six years.
The new Council would have an area of more than 10,000 sq km and a population of more than 90,000. With nine councillors that will mean more than 10,000 residents per Councillor. I wonder how much attention a village of 300 people lying at the southern-most extremity would get with that arrangement? The possibility of "wards" being introduced within the new Council is mooted with each ward electing the same number of councillors.
My view of the report (attached) is that the authors were quite accomplished in adding together and averaging but their level of understanding of the regional issues and local constraints lies somewhere between negligible and non-existent. Not that ignorance has ever proved an obstacle to government decision-making. The claimed savings of $30million over 10 years are probably on the high side of wildly optimistic.
The report makes comparisons of the new council with Tweed Shire Council as they would have almost the same population. Tweed Council's own Fit for the Future document points out that it benefits greatly from covering a single river catchment area. Tweed's area is just over one eighth of the proposed new Council meaning nearly eight times the population density. The idea that the two could be equated in any way simply demonstrates the lack of any real understanding of the issues.
At the same time as this new merger proposal emerges there are some rumours about people agitating for local government boundary changes with Port Stephens.
For further background see:
http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/story/3769870/coastal-councils-join-merger-melting-pot/
http://www.greatlakes.nsw.gov.au/News/Possible-Council-merger-back-on-the-table and
http://www.manningrivertimes.com.au/story/3778279/merger-proposal-beggars-belief/
Written submissions to this merger proposal will be accepted until 5.00pm Friday 15 April 2016 and can be submitted either online here or by mail to:
Council Boundary Review
GPO Box 5341
Sydney NSW 2001
