1

Council: Queanbeyan City Council

Delegate: John Turner

Venue: Queanbeyan Golf Club

Date: 16 March 2016

Time: 1pm

John: I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians and their ancestors of the land on which this public inquiry takes place and also to pay my respect to elders past and present. This inquiry is being conducted in accordance with Section 263 of the Local Government Act and my role as delegate is to 5 

examine and report on a proposal that has been referred to the Acting Chief Executive of the Office of Local Government by the Minister for Local Government under Section 218F1 of the Act. This proposal is for the merger between Palerang Council and Queanbeyan City Council.

I have been appointed to conduct an examination of the proposal and to 10 

provide a report to the Minister and the Boundaries Commission. I would like to stress that my role is an impartial one and I am not an advocate for the proposal. Sections 2632A and 218F2 of the Local Government Act requires me to hold a public inquiry into the proposal to merge the two Councils. The main purpose of this public inquiry is to provide members of the public with an 15 

opportunity to express their opinions on the proposal directly to me. Members of the public have been invited to attend today’s public inquiry and should they choose to speak about the proposal under examination. More details about the examination and reporting process can be found on the Council Boundary Review website but in summary, I will conduct a public inquiry, I will 20 

call for written submissions and prepare a report on the proposal with due regard to the factors of Section 2633 of the Act. The factors I must consider in my report are the financial advantages or disadvantages of the proposal to the residents and ratepayers of the areas concerned.

The community of interest and geographic cohesion in the existing areas and 25 

any proposed new area.

The existing historical and traditional values in the existing areas and the impact of change on them.

The attitude of residents and ratepayers of the areas concerned.

The requirements of the area concerned in relation to elected representation 30 

for residents and ratepayers at the local level.

The desirability and appropriate relationship between elected representatives and ratepayers and residents and such other matters as considered relevant in relation to the past and future patterns of elected representation for the area. 35 

  2

The impact of the proposal on the ability of the Council to provide adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities.

The impact of the proposal on the employment of the staff by the Council.

The impact of the proposal on any rural communities in the resulting area.

The desirability or otherwise of dividing the resulting area or areas into wards. 5 

The need to ensure that the opinions of each of the diverse communities of the resulting area or areas are effectively represented and any other factors relevant to the provision of efficient and effective local government in the existing and proposed new areas.

At the conclusion of the examination process I will prepare a report to the 10 

Minister and the Boundaries Commission. The Boundaries Commission will review and provide comment on the report and provide these comments to the Minister for Local Government. The Minister for Local Government will then consider the report together with any comments from the Boundaries Commission and may or may not recommend to the Governor of New South 15 

Wales that the proposed merger be implemented.

To allow today’s proceedings to be conducted equitably and efficiently, the inquiry will be structured with a schedule of speakers and time limits. We have in fact, three speakers and at this time I propose to allow the Council 20 minutes for their presentation and other speakers up to ten minutes but we 20 

will probably be very flexible with that time in the circumstances. I am mindful that whatever time I do give the speakers here; it will be a benchmark for the speakers I give at Bungendore tonight.

Finally, I need to make it clear that while today’s public inquiry is interested in hearing from the speakers about the proposal under examination, I do not 25 

have the power to resolve specific issues or complaints that any individual or organisation may have about the proposal. My duty today is to listen to all submissions and consider them along with other material gathered throughout the course of the examination process in my final report. I need to make it clear that I do not have the power to resolve any specific issues or identify 30 

solutions to any particular complaints that an individual or organisation may have about the proposal or the local government reform process to date.

In addition to having the opportunity to speak at this public inquiry, members of the public may provide their views on the merger proposal by making written submissions. Written submissions will be one of the most important 35 

ways for me to gather information during the examination process and the weight of written submissions is no different to the weight of verbal submissions. If you wish to make a written submission, you are encouraged to focus on one or more of the factors listed in Section 2633 of the Act which I have just read out. 40 

All submissions will be published at the end of the proposal examination process unless the author of a submission requests that it remain confidential.

  3

Written submissions close at 5:00pm on Friday, the 8th April 2016 and can be submitted either online at the Council Boundary Review website or by mail to GPO Box 5341, Sydney 2001.

That concludes my formal part of the meeting. I now invite the Mayor to address us. 5 

Mayor: First of all, thank you Mr Turner for the opportunity to speak but also for holding this public inquiry meeting both in Queanbeyan and Bungendore tonight. It would have been reasonable just to have Queanbeyan [indecipherable] also. Firstly, after I speak, Peter Tegart, our general manager, will also be speaking in regard to this matter on behalf of 10 

Queanbeyan City Council. I would like to first recap on Council’s submission on the partition proposal because that will lead into what we’re discussing today about the full merger proposal. Queanbeyan City Council provisionally supports the Minister’s partition proposal on the assumption of the benefits claimed in the KPMG report but they’re yet to be verified by our own 15 

consultants, LKS Quaero. Our actual submission noted concerns about the accuracy of the KPMG information particularly in regard to operating revenues doubling to $191 million within ten years and the consequential impact on the forecast operating result. Our submission also noted concerns in regard to Palerang Council’s asset backlog and the impact of freezing of 20 

rates and also financial assistance graphs. And, with Council’s provision support was to request that the Minister consider the partitioning proposal and the full merger proposals concurrently.

Also, Council reserved the right to express its final position by 8 April based on firstly, the long term asset and financial sustainability as a stand-alone 25 

council and secondly, assessment of the merger proposal versus full merger versus stand-alone by our consultants, LKS Quaero.

With regard to the partitioning proposal, we understand the benefits to be that there be up to $2.4 million estimated annual saving after a four year transition period, $15 million government grant available to fund transition and reduce 30 

combined asset backlogs, access to low interest Treasury Corp loans, no forced reduction of staff and the preservation of communities of interest generally related to Queanbeyan and Canberra and the conditions attaching to our provisional support of the partition was that the proposed boundaries of Araluen and Majors Creek should be modified. Council reserves the right 35 

also to seek the modification of other boundaries by agreement with Goulburn, Mulwaree and Cooma-Monaro.

In regard to representation, one of our conditions was that there should be 13 councillors. That was the view of the Council. No wards and a popularly elected Mayor. There be a greater level of employment flexibility in that 40 

Bungendore should no longer be classified as a rural centre under Section 218CA. Equitable distribution of assets and in this regard, we put forward a need for equalisation graphs for asset standardisation in terms of quality of maintenance and assignment of the RMS contract to Goulburn Mulwarree in the interest of a stronger longer local government in the region 45 

  4

and in that regard, we were conscious of Goulburn Mulwarree’s positon in the financial figures they put forward in regard to their part merger partitioning proposal.

Now, in regard to the full merger proposal, I make the following observations.

In regard to financials, with a full merger the extra saving over 20 years is only 5 

half a million dollars over 20 years and yet a full merger does result in an additional $3 million infrastructure backlog based on the figures that have been put forward. The KPMG forecast of $191 million operating revenue within ten years appears to be unrealistic. There is little ability to rationalise and reduce costs further if Section 218CA staffing restrictions continue to 10 

apply across the board. A merger brings with it a likely increase in expectations of service and asset standards and we note that Palerang has lowered its asset standards in its 2015 Review. Queanbeyan City Council have commission LKS Quaero to undertake a financial assessment of a full merger proposal and also asses Palerang’s submission to the partition 15 

proposal and this will form part of our formal submission on 8th April.

Now, in regard to boundary considerations, while a full merger may be administratively efficient, and I acknowledge the Independent Local Government Review Panel’s Report advocating full mergers where practicable, however, this is a one off chance to get borders right, based on 20 

communities of interest and serviceability. The Independent Local Government Review Panel recommended Council should be able to operate efficiently within the limits imposed by their location, geography and characteristics of the communities and as a general rule, it should be possible to drive to the boundaries of an LGA from head office within 60 to 90 minutes. 25 

Queanbeyan is at the western extremity of the proposed new LGA, some 90 minutes to the eastern border and villages of Araluen and Majors Creek. The general manager, Peter Tegart, will provide a map illustrating travel distances when he speaks.

Another observation, community of interest. Previous public inquiry 30 

addressees and the surveys indicate that the connection at Majors Creek and Araluen is with Braidwood or, some would advocate Moruya and the connection of Braidwood is more with Goulburn than with Queanbeyan. In regard to the Queanbeyan connection and the partition, up to 60 minutes’ travel is within the Independent Local Government Review Panel 35 

recommendations, work, education, recreation, Bungendore, Captains Flat, Lake George and Michelago all within that 60 minute travel time.

In regard to employment, the full merger retains existing staff and skills but there is the potential to redeploy back office into support for clients, assets, economic and community services functions. The RMS contract gives scale 40 

but we understand several Palerang staff and plant is reliant on that contract and the contract is actually subject to competition, a competitive bid. If lost to a new local government area full merger, the new local government area still has to retain the staff given the restrictions and this presents a real risk to ongoing viability of the new Council if that contract should be lost. 45 

  5

In regard to representation, assuming ten councillors, which is what Queanbeyan City Council currently has, assuming ten councillors at the current cost, a full merger will have the equivalent of one Councillor per 5,600 residents comparted to Queanbeyan’s one representative, one councillor per 4,000. A cost saving of nine Councillors amounts to around $3.3 million over 5 

20 years yet the review of the Local Government Act requires an uneven number of Councillors and the reforms propose councillor remuneration increases. Queanbeyan’s submission in regard to the partition proposes 13 Councillors and if there were 13 Councillors in a new fully merged local government area this would retain the existing representation of about one 10 

Councillor per 4,000.

In regard to the full merger, Council is not in a position to determine a final positon until it’s held its Councillor Workshop, its meeting, ordinary meeting of Council on the 6th April and a formal submission on the 8th April.

We’ve done extensive preparation already. Queanbeyan City Council has 15 

undertaken a stocktake since October 2015 to position Council for Fit for the Future. We have commissioned independent consultancies and asset and financial sustainability review by Professor Percy Allan, a rating structure and water pricing review by Aether Consultants, an ICT strategy by [indecipherable] a complete review of our property and property development 20 

opportunities by Hill PDA, procurement by ArcBlue Consultants, as well as community engagement, community satisfaction with services through Iris Consulting and corporate services benchmarking through PWC, also undertaking internal reviews on services, communications and workforce planning. What’s the outcome? Queanbeyan City Council is well placed to 25 

stand-alone. Queanbeyan City Council has an affordable pricing path, manageable asset backlog, services in line with population growth, acceptable levels of debt, strong relationships with New South Wales, ACT and Federal Governments, participates in the CBR JO for Advocacy and Regional Planning, hosts or supports back office services already to 30 

Palerang, being the library, Australian Business Excellence Framework, Promap.

Queanbeyan Council will be fully assessing the prospect of a stronger regional local government through a partition or full merger with Palerang. Council has recently undertaken an independently conducted survey of 35 

Queanbeyan and Palerang residents on their view of partition or of a full merger and Peter Tegart will provide an overview of those results shortly. Council will be considering various conditions in assessing a full merger given that the new entity will have over 5,300 square kilometres, over 56,000 population growing to 76,000 as communities remote from Queanbeyan and 40 

access to services, has almost $600 million in assets at 6% or $35 million in backlog and that backlog needs to be moved down to 2% or $12 million in ten years. Therefore, as a condition of a full merger and at no additional cost to government, we would be considering proposing a $10 million merger grant to invest in new services and systems to improve equity and access to the 45 

broader community in the new LGA and a $20 million infrastructure grant to identify real asset backlog, reduce backlog early and differentiate and

  6

potentially harmonise the asset standards. To enable some equity with staff conditions, Bungendore should not be classified as a rural centre under Section 218CA. Many staff formerly from Yarrowlumla, are in Queanbeyan. Bungendore is not traditionally a rural centre reliant on Council as an employer, 60% of the workforce work in Queanbeyan and the ACT. 5 

Currently, Queanbeyan has a staff of 270 full time equivalents, Bungendore 82. We note that Bungendore staff have grown from 60 to 80 since 2004. While Braidwood and Captains Flat are certainly rural centres, the non-classification of Bungendore would allow for integration and back office functions, movement and development of staff between Queanbeyan and 10 

Bungendore and continue existing shared systems.

Now, in conclusion I can say that Council supports the government’s local government reform program as its intent is to provide for a strong local government around the Queanbeyan region. Council urges the Minister to consider the partitioning proposal and the full merger proposal concurrently 15 

and Council reserves the right to express its final position by 8th April based on long term asset and financial sustainability as a stand-alone Council, assessment of the merger proposal by a consultant LKS Quaero, views of the community expressed through our recent survey and comparative costs and benefits of a partition, full merger or stand-alone for the residents of 20 

Queanbeyan.

I might hand over to Peter Tegart.

Peter: Mr Delegate, if you’re willing, I can break this into two parts. One where I can illustrate some of the outcomes of the survey. I’m registered as a speaker as well as well as the Councillor so I’m happy to break it up or have it all flow as 25 

one [indecipherable].

John: What’s the time?

Facilitator: We’re 14 minutes in.

John: Well, in the circumstances, I’ll allow you to use the last six minutes of the Council presentation and ten minutes of speaking time. 30 

Peter: Thank you Mr Delegate. The Mayor has indicated a number of items around financials, the survey and serviceability that I will touch on. Just to recap, the merge proposal does indicate that overall there’s about a half a million dollar saving across the 20 years. It’s the same savings that are generated by the partition, a course which is the streamlining of senior manager being one GM 35 

for 20 years. There isn’t harmonisation of salary costs for that order per year, that the increase in purchasing benefits would only improve about $100,000 across the 20 years and of course, as the Mayor indicated, should there be an uneven number of Councillors and should the Council fees increase to $30,000 as proposed by the KPMG report, that saving is completely wiped 40 

out. Of course, the asset backlog for the partition versus the merger moves to $33 million to about 35 I think. Of course, the expectation of government is that right across the board, that any Council should have a backlog of no

  7

more than 2% and in that case that would be a backlog of $12 million to be eradicated across an extra decade.

We had indicated at the last presentation Mr Delegate, that our financial reports had indicated that a merger would not enable either Queanbeyan or Palerang to be sustainable in the long term. However, that was before of 5 

course, the offer of grants from the government and as the Mayor had indicated, that while the partition proposal was for $5 million merger grant and a $10 million infrastructure grant, as the Mayor had indicated, at no further cost to government if there was a full merger, Council would be putting forward a notion that $10 million should go towards the cost of mergers to 10 

allow investment services systems and indeed, $20 million be allocated towards the removal of the backlog and improvement to infrastructure.

Percy Allan has provided a desktop assessment of Palerang and Queanbeyan. It is very high level and as the Mayor indicated, we’re getting more detail on that assessment. It’s been provided to LKS Quaero but it does 15 

indicate at a very quick glance that using current policy of Queanbeyan and Palerang that there would be a significant deterioration in both the operating balance ratios. Again, there was no evidence of how $191 million operating revenues could be achieved and likewise, on current pathways demonstrated by the long term financial plans of both Queanbeyan and Palerang, that we 20 

would head towards 5.4% asset backlog which would look like that. The Percy Allan review talks about the traffic light system in those circumstances, would be heading to what’s called the red zone.

Mr Delegate, as the Mayor indicated, there was a survey undertaken by Iris between 400 residents of Palerang, 400 residents of Queanbeyan who were 25 

neither a Council or a Council staff member and of course, over the age of 15. There are the preliminary results. Neither Council have had these reports provided to them as yet but to demonstrate that any support of a merger of any kind is somewhat marginal, the question here is do you support any merger of any kind and in both cases, it’s a 60:40 split. So, in other words, 30 

40% at least are saying that there should be no change to the stand-alone whereas if there was, 60:40 would be the mark which is not a convincing stat. Of those 60% of Palerang and Queanbeyan illustrated on the left hand right of the screen, those that did support a merger of some kind, being a partition or full merger, the Queanbeyan surveyed residents, almost two thirds said yes, 35 

there could be some gains about efficiency and cost savings and that was replicated in the views of the Palerang surveyed residents.

The reasons for not supporting it were as strong and that was the basis in Queanbeyan that there would be increased expenses or the area was too large and lost that identity and a mix of views from the Palerang residents 40 

around yes, increase in expenses, the loss of local rural identity and of course, they don’t want change at all.

So, what is different? Of those that did support a merger of some kind, the Queanbeyan group by a margin of 60:40 felt around a preferred partition and that’s contrasted to the Palerang version which supported again, 60:40 a full 45 

  8

merger. Breaking that down further, there were some mixed views. So, in terms of rationalising the survey against the impacts required of the public inquiry, in this case the financial position, there was on the Queanbeyan side, a view that there would be some savings or efficiencies brought around financially by a full merger but certainly some doubt around a partition and 5 

there was certainly seen to be some benefits financially by both partition and a full merger by Palerang. Likewise, a mixed message out of the improvement to community infrastructure but there were some sentiments of Queanbeyan that there would be some improvement to infrastructure but equally, a deterioration. Broadly, Palerang felt there would be some 10 

improvement to community infrastructure and no doubt of the expectation of that infrastructure standard harmonisation that the Mayor spoke about.

In terms of services generally to the community, again a mixed bag. Where Queanbeyan residents felt that a partition would lead to a deterioration under a partition but an improvement under a full merger, and the Palerang 15 

residents that were surveyed thought that services would be improved but again, it’s only very marginal by just over 50%.

In representation, probably no surprise there particularly on the Palerang side that there was a mixed view that there may be improvement but more likely or equally, a deterioration in representation by both partition and by full merger. 20 

No surprises that in relation to the level of rates, Queanbeyan were quite strong feeling that the rates value would deteriorate under either scenario and the feeling amongst the Palerang residents that they may remain roughly around the same but again, those figures aren’t convincing.

In relation to other factors, the Mayor raised the issue of the asset backlog 25 

and that was a matter raised in the full merger and the partition presentation about LKS Quaero, Council consultants, compared both the Asset Management Plans and Special Schedule 7 of Palerang to ascertain what is likely to be the backlog. This indicates in the 2014 accounts that the value of the assets were at $150 mil. That’s the number KPMG used. They used the 30 

backlog ratios of around about 16% to identify a backlog in the high 30s, $40 million mark for Palerang. However, since then the 2015 results have come back and show that the asset base has increased from $150 million to $220 million, the cost to bring those services back to an appropriate standards has better than halved and indeed that’s represented by the 35 

backlog also having halved and that’s on the basis that the Council adjusted, we understand, the service standard or the asset standard for a number of those assets and that has led to that reduction in both the cost of bringing assets up to a satisfactory standard and the size of the backlog by virtue of Special Schedule 7. That does differ to Queanbeyan both in terms of the 40 

standards. Again, the Percy Allan review in conjunction with GHG had identified where those asset standards were and the points of intervention for replacement or renewal of those assets and in the main they found that 80% of Queanbeyan Council’s assets were good or better stage and again, those are indications or illustration of the standards that the Council will be looking 45 

to deploy in the revision of their asset value plans in coming months. Again,

  9

Percy Allan found that on the basis that, to reinforce, on a combined or a merge situation, that unless there was significant change to existing policy or indeed, a significant investment from a government grant for example, that both Palerang and Queanbeyan’s combined asset backlog, on the basis of the Schedule 7 statistics, would indicate quite a substantial deterioration. 5 

However, as the Mayor had indicated, that current backlog of $33 million to $35 million which is worth 6% at the moment, if that $20 million odd grant was forthcoming from the government, that very quickly would eradicate that backlog and very quickly we would have a sustainable local government authority but equally, the government could provide that backlog to both the 10 

Councils in the stand-alone.

We have raised this before Mr Delegate, about the communities of interest, those are the definitions that are being used quite broadly across the globe about what is a sense of community and belonging to a particular locality. LKS Quaero did provide some assessments around that. As the Mayor had 15 

indicated, they looked at population, recreation, education, place of work, healthcare and so forth. We have provided in our submission, a copy of these assessments but in rough terms, in a line drawn roughly along the old Talagander boundary, two thirds of the population is west of that line and one third to the east and that roughly coincides with the boundaries of Lake 20 

George, the Shoalhaven River and the Duo or Maria Rivers. Likewise, in terms of major shopping, most of the major shopping of Palerang and of course, Queanbeyan is in the Queanbeyan and ACT and likewise, the place of work, the bulk of the communities along that divide head west into Queanbeyan and the ACT. 25 

The Mayor had indicated this notion of the 218CA classification. It’s been identified that while the Local Government Act refers to a rural centre as being a population of less than 5,000, the argument, just to reinforce the points the Mayor had raised, that many of the Yarrowlumla staff had come from Queanbeyan once where the centre of Yarrowlumla originally was and 30 

they’ve moved to Bungendore. A number of staff from Bungendore currently live in Queanbeyan and vice versa, a number of Queanbeyan staff live in Bungendore but there are a number of other classifications that are used across Australia that would indicate that Bungendore falls into a different classification and therefore should not be considered as a rural centre. We 35 

have highlighted here the [indecipherable] Index. That ratio is a period of fact of a lot of metropolitan Sydney suburbs. The employment rate was obviously very low compared to Braidwood and contemporary rural centres and of course, the median household income is well above those of for example, Braidwood and the average regional centres of New South Wales. 40 

Finally, Mr Delegate, the point the Mayor raised was on the matter of serviceability. Queanbeyan is at the western extremity of what would be the combined merged local government area while in a partition environment, that a 60 minute drive would tend to capture certainly two thirds of that population, the movement to the extremities of the border or to the villages of Araluen 45 

and Majors Creek, is at the outer boundary of that recommended by the independent panel, being 90 minutes. Whereas, the remainder certainly is

  10

within that 40 minutes to 1 hour basis. On that prospect, and in noting the relative closeness of Bungendore and Queanbeyan, we had raised at the previous presentation that Bungendore is certainly more geographically well placed, albeit the bulk of the population remains in the western perimeter of that area. So, it’s a matter of efficiencies that were put forward by KPMG and 5 

the government may be eradicated by the additional travel load brought about by both staff accessing these areas to deliver services and likewise, clients to access the head office. Hence the argument about investing significantly in services and systems to allow the technology and remote access for people to self-self and self-heal, is the current terminology, or indeed to improve the 10 

mobility of staff in providing services when they’re in the field rather than based in depots and offices around the local government area.

I think we almost made that in time.

John: Thank you. Hugh Percy.

Hugh: Thank you Mr Delegate. Just to mention, I’ve lived in Queanbeyan since 15 

1968. I’m formerly the Deputy Town Clerk, Town Clerk, General Manager of the Queanbeyan City Council and administrator at the Walgett Shire Council. This is my second appearance to address the merger proposal, Queanbeyan and Palerang and again, I will not be mentioning any financial implications as these are only assumptions made to suit a particular case and results will not 20 

be validated until the merged body is operated as one entity. Again, I wish to address the fragmented history and the inextricable community of interest with Queanbeyan of the Yarrowlumla, Palerang Councils.

Yarrowlumla Council commenced operations from Queanbeyan in 1907 but on the 1st January 1911 nearly half of the Shire’s area was lost to the Federal 25 

Capital Territory, now Canberra. For 97 years the Yarrowlumla Shire Council Queanbeyan operated its offices from Queanbeyan. The offices were extended in 1965, 1980 and again in 1987, still in Queanbeyan. The expansion and development of the Yarrowlumla Shire Council was due entirely to its proximity to Queanbeyan in the years up to the 70s and then 30 

due to its proximity to the developing Canberra and in fact, Canberra’s early development was facilitated by its proximity to Queanbeyan.

There have been a number of boundary proposals targeting the Yarrowlumla Shire Council. A boundaries inquiry in 1989 which was brought forward due to Queanbeyan’s rapid expansion, came up with an undesirable result insofar 35 

as the Tralee and Environa areas were added to Queanbeyan. Tralee had been under a planning proposal for 16 years and Environa is still a working farm. Then in February 2004 the State Government undertook its own boundary review and the Yarrowlumla Shire Council was dissolved and Palerang Council was constituted made up of lands from 44% of the former 40 

Yarrowlumla Council which left a quarter of the original shire intact. The balance of the shire being divided between Yass Valley, Queanbeyan City and Cooma-Monaro Councils. The Braidwood area was added to the Palerang area. This left the Burra area isolated from the contiguous areas of the new shire thus forcing Burra residents to travel through Queanbeyan to do 45 

  11

their business in Bungendore as the Palerang offices were newly established in Bungendore and resulted in heavily subsidisation from government grants. In 2007 the Burra community instigated a boundaries view with a view to moving the Burra area under the Queanbeyan City Council umbrella.

The community was disenfranchised by the changes in 2004. The only model 5 

that the State Government should be considering is to merge the Queanbeyan and Palerang Council areas. Any other iteration of a boundary change is flawed as it does and will not address the appropriate interests of Braidwood, Majors Creek and Araluen in particular nor will the interests and effects on the Shoalhaven Eurobodalla Councils be addressed. The type of 10 

unilateral decision made beyond boundaries previously made are now proposed for Sydney has benefited no one in the past and exacerbated the current boundary tensions in the area. There has been much conjecture from the Palerang Council and particularly on a range of issues and concerns. Economic, community, social, sporting, cultural and leisure. As if a merger 15 

such as this has never been successful. A perfect example of local authorities who have raised the same concerns in the past is the Wagga City Council, Mitchell and Kiamba Shires amalgamation some decades ago.

Whilst representation is a concern raised by some, the best model involves whole of area representation with a reasonable number of representatives but 20 

no more than 9 to 12 Councillors otherwise the decision making process becomes unwieldly. Queanbeyan is well placed to provide a seamless regional service to Palerang as well as other regional councils for services such as human resources, IT, work safety, procurement rating and so on. Queanbeyan is strategically placed to provide a complete JO operation for all 25 

surrounding councils, Yass, Palerang, Cooma-Monaro, Snowy River. Any problems, issues or concerns identified in the Fit for the Future process will be better managed by a single entity rather than an entity that continues to be sliced and diced.

My recommendations are that the proposed merger of the current 30 

Queanbeyan and Palerang local government areas be implemented with the headquarters operating from Queanbeyan and that the new elected Council for the merged areas be given responsibility to consult with the respective communities in the expanded area as well as the ACT Government and Goulburn, Shoalhaven and Eurobodalla Councils with a view to a devolution 35 

of some areas to other jurisdictions after considering community of interest, water catchment and servicing issues. That the devolution process just mentioned be completed within 12 months of a merger happening. That the new authority comprises between 9 and 12 Councillors. That the State Government pass suitable and appropriate legislation to address the anomaly 40 

of current legislation to protect staff, Section 218CA, to allow the new Council to operate its financial management with no legislative constraints.

Thank you Mr Delegate.

John: Thank you very much. In the circumstances, does any other person want to make a contribution? Can I indicate to the representatives of Palerang, at 45 

  12

some stage either this evening or in your submissions, could you address the Bungendore rural centre question that was raised by the Queanbeyan representatives? Thank you.

I can’t close this meeting at the moment unfortunately because I am required to have it open until 4:00pm. However, I’m quite prepared if people wish to 5 

leave, we won’t take any offence of that because it’s a long time to sit. Also, I reiterate, as I said, at the last, I cannot do one to one meetings during this course of time. Thank you for your contributions. I appreciate it. Please remember the submission process and submissions close on the 8th April and we look forward to those submissions in due course. Thank you very much. 10 

Please feel free.

Facilitator: That’s it, for the moment anyway. I’ve put the wrong one up have I? Sorry. I have actually corrected one.

John: It is the 8th April.

Facilitator: It is definitely the 8th April and there should be a slide on it that is correct but 15 

that wasn’t it.

Male: Do we hang around here again?

Facilitator: We’ll be here.

[BREAK]

Facilitator: Can absolutely be reserved if you like. 20 

Female: I didn’t go to the Council meeting.

John: It’s here.

Female: This one?

Facilitator: What this is, is the public inquiry into the second proposal to merge the whole of Palerang with Queanbeyan. 25 

Female: How did they go? What did the Mayor say?

Facilitator: A lot.

Female: Did he?

John: All that.

Facilitator: Basically all of that. There was a presentation, they talked about the 30 

Council’s viewpoint, it was done in the form of verbal presentation to us so it’s obviously things that will be taken board in considering.

John: If you would like to make a presentation to me you can.

  13

Female: Well, I don’t know that much about it actually. I can always talk.

Facilitator: I should tell you that in the interests of fairness you have ten minutes.

Female: Ten minutes?

Facilitator: Yes, and we will get you to sign in on the speaker sheets because we’re just keeping track of who speaks and everyone. 5 

Female: Yes, and the fact that there’s nobody here to dob me in is a good thing.

Facilitator: Well, yes and in actual fact the only people you really need to talk to is the delegate. The only person is the delegate. So, he’s here and he is open to hear any submissions between now and 4 o’clock.

Female: Wow. So, Paul’s father came in? 10 

Facilitator: Yes.

Female: Did he talk? Yes?

Facilitator: No.

Female: No?

Facilitator: No. He’s just an attendant. 15 

Female: Brian Brown came in?

Facilitator: Yes.

Female: Jerra?

Facilitator: Yes. Didn’t talk either.

Female: Didn’t talk either? 20 

Facilitator: No. These were just people who registered at the last minute.

Female: Okay. That will do. Speak. Yep.

Facilitator: Okay.

Female: What are people – how are they going? For it or against it?

John: I’m not allowed to comment about the process. I’m here to listen to your 25 

submission to me in relation to the process.

Female: So, I have to wait until the end of it before I can talk?

John: No. You can talk now. The speakers that have presently been here have already spoken and they have elected to go home and leave the meeting so we’re obliged to stay here until 4 o’clock in case somebody such as yourself 30 

  14

does arrive. So, the process is still going on and I now ask you to speak for up to ten minutes on your views in relation to the proposal to merge all of Palerang and Queanbeyan Councils together.

Female: Do you know, I haven’t heard anything all this time but I always have plenty of things to say and I don’t know that we had this choice the last time the whole 5 

works came around, we had to go somewhere outside the border. There was this bloke in charge of it and we said our bit. We were in favour of Queanbeyan and Braidwood joining up, Palerang. We were in favour of that at the time but this is a whole new kettle of fish isn’t it because it’s everything all in the one pot. So, it’s not like it was the last time when we had to go – I 10 

don’t know where we went. We had to go to some – it might have been one of the universities actually. We had to go somewhere and meet. I was very much in favour of going on with Braidwood. I don’t want to go anywhere with the ACT because I don’t think the ACT is fair. Any rate, that’s what I put in for. I said to him that I thought we should go with Braidwood and partly 15 

because we were always aligned with Braidwood in the early days. In the early 1800s we used to line up with Braidwood and poked our foot in the door, so to speak. I don’t know that we would have been better off. We have no idea because it all fell through. They didn’t go ahead with it so we didn’t do anything. Queanbeyan didn’t go anywhere and nobody else went anywhere 20 

but the opportunity was there. We felt that we should go with Braidwood. See Braidwood, when [indecipherable] was in Queanbeyan and he was pretty good and people really liked him and when he lined up with Braidwood we also thought well that’s a pretty good thing to do, line up with Braidwood with [indecipherable], we’ll be on the right side of the law. I don’t know that we 25 

were, but yes. I often wonder about that, whether they should have gone ahead with something back then. Gosh, that was a long time ago. How long ago?

John: I don’t know.

Female: About ten year ago do you reckon? Ten years? It was a fair while ago and 30 

we all trotted out there and we sat down and we glared at people who didn’t look – they were Queanbeyan people so we gave them a bit of a dirty look. “What are you lot doing out here” but they were pretty nice. I think it was a good submission. “Submissions are encouraged to focus on one or more factors listed in Section 2633 of the Local Government Act. Final report and 35 

all written submissions will be published at the end of proposal examination process unless submissions are confidential. You are encouraged to make a written submission, 5:00pm on Friday the 8th April. Council Boundary Review, New South Wales Government”. Have you got anything with that written down or do I need to write it? You’ve got it? I can get it? A copy? 40 

Facilitator: If you go on to the website, the Council Boundary Review website, all the information is there.

Female: Okay.

Facilitator: Just type in Queanbeyan and the proposals will come up and it’s got all the information there that you need. 45 

  15

Female: See, I’m pretty good on heritage and history. That’s all I do but I can’t remember what we did the last time I was here so that’s not very exciting is it? And, it was a bigger place than this. I think it must have been a university or else one of the colleges because it was a big room, huge room, not like this.

“We’re encouraged to focus on one or more factors listed in Section 2633 of 5 

the Local Government Act”. How big is this that they’re doing now with the expansion? Is it very big?

John: We’re not allowed to actually have a question and answer session. You must talk to us about your thoughts and views in relation to the proposals.

Female: Well, I went to one yesterday. I went to – see, try and remember what that 10 

one was about. That was only one day. So what was yesterday? Yesterday was about Braidwood and Queanbeyan but not in that sense, different to that. “Examination process. Submissions marked confidential”. Gee, that’s hard, trying to think what you were talking about yesterday. So what was I talking about yesterday? I said – Friday, April the 8th, Council Boundary Review. So, 15 

who’s doing this review? Palerang?

John: I’m doing the review. I’m the delegate to look at the review.

Female: For who?

John: I’m the delegate that’s doing the review.

Female: Okay. 20 

Facilitator: On behalf of the Minister for Local Government, so it’s a State Government thing.

Female: Okay. Okay. I’m trying to figure out why they were suddenly doing it now and I thought well, they had the threat to shock with us. We were very intelligent of course, in those days. “You’re encouraged to provide your views on the 25 

merger proposal by making a written submission”. Well, Queen Nelly is not – what do they call her now? The mob over in Queanbeyan, they changed everything to make it more fairer to them. Of course I argue against that so I’m not necessarily the most popular kid on the block but Queen Nelly was the Palerang area and Queanbeyan was Palerang area and we belonged to the – 30 

not the Ngunnawal. The Ngunnawal they put into the ACT because the ACT started to pay everybody for giving speeches and opening things and so a lot of them moved into that areas because you got paid for it. Me, I’m not paying any of them. I think that they belong on this side of the border because that’s where we did come from. So, I’m very much in favour of sticking with Nelly 35 

and being a – now, what did I say we are? We’re not Ngunnawal, we’re Nelly. She died in the Queanbeyan Hospital in 1897 and her husband died there, Bobby, or I can’t see what difference it makes whether you call them husbands and wives or - - -

  16

John: That’s ten minutes now. That’s the amount of time we allowed the other speakers so I’ll have to ask you to finish up. Thank you very much for your contribution.

Female: I haven’t made any contribution.

John: Do you want to put any submissions? Can I suggest that you do it through - - 5 

-

Female: I’ll write something and that. I’ve got folders and folders and folders of history.

John: Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you for coming.

Female: It was my pleasure actually. It’s made me think about it. I hadn’t thought 10 

about it. I didn’t know what it was about except that I’m very much in favour of sticking with Nelly.

John: Okay. We must stop you there because otherwise it’s unfair to other people who are going to speak at another meeting.

Female: They’re at another meeting? 15 

John: There’s another meeting tonight in Bungendore. Again, thank you for your contribution.

Female: I quite enjoyed it. I know that all the stuff I’ve got at home is relevant but any rate, I’ll put in a written submission.

Facilitator: If you have a look on the website you will see that one of the factors that we 20 

are considering is historic and traditional ties in the area.

Female: The which?

Facilitator: Historic and traditional ties.

Female: Oh, it is?

Facilitator: So, if you’ve got information around that - - - 25 

Female: We belong to Braidwood.

Facilitator: - - - then a submission would be interesting.

Female: We had nothing to do with Canberra. Nobody did. Canberra were nothing. They were just a few people who were - - -

John: I’m sorry but I do have to stop you because it’s unfair to other people that you 30 

speak longer than them.

Female: That’s all right. No. That’s all right. Oh no, I said right from the start I was in favour of Braidwood. We were in favour of Braidwood years ago.

  17

John: Please, I must ask you to stop.

Female: Are you a Minister or something? Where are you from?

John: This inquiry is still proceeding so I really can’t go into a question and answer session with you.

Female: That’s all right. That’s all right. I did all right. 5 

John: I’m not asking you to leave but you can feel free to leave if you wish. You’re welcome to stay but we don’t expect any other speakers this afternoon. We’d be very surprised if we would get any more.

Female: Well, I didn’t know I was going to be that late that it would be all over. It wouldn’t make any difference. I wouldn’t have changed what I say. 10 

John: Yes.

Female: I think it was more interesting yesterday because - - -

 

END TRANSCRIPT

15