The state government’s overhaul of planning laws, tabled in NSW Parliament on October 22, has been finally supported by the state’s peak body representing 152 shire councils, Local Government NSW.
It’s the most significant planning overhaul in several decades, yet was continually criticised by environmental and civil liberties groups who claimed the draft legislation favoured fast-track developments and lacked community input. And while Local Government NSW also shared many of those views, president Cr Keith Rhoades AFSM said in a statement his organisation ‘achieved significant amendments’ to the draft policy prior to it being introduced. They include sustainable development, community inclusion, biodiversity conservation, natural resource management and retaining heritage protections. ‘[Planning] Minister Hazzard has listened to the concerns of councils and communities alike and included sustainable development in the upfront objectives of the Act and triple-bottom-line considerations in merit-assessable development applications, which will still be dealt with by councils. ‘What’s more, the Bill’s underpinning objectives now also recognise biodiversity conservation, natural resource management including agricultural land, and retain the same heritage protections as the current Act.’ Meanwhile Mr Hazzard told Parliament on October 23 that ‘The Greens should be on board with that concept. They cannot have it both ways: either we are backing the councils and the communities or we are not.’ The minister also had a swipe at media reporting, saying his new laws have been ‘misinterpreted by some members of the media.’ ‘The bottom line is that code-assessable development will be available across the state, across all of Sydney. It will be up to the councils and the community to determine whether they want code-assessable development.’ For more visit www.planning.nsw.gov.au.
0 Comments
Meet the manager of Council’s operational arm, general manager Ken Gainger.
While elected councillors make policy, the implementation – or operation – is undertaken by 270 full-time public service employees, all overseen by Mr Gainger. And that makes Council perhaps the shire’s largest employer. We met last week just after he emerged from a meeting with the Grants Commission. Byron Shire is currently significantly disadvantaged by the formula used to distribute federal financial assistance grants to NSW councils, and he’s hopeful this will change after a review is completed as part of a local-government reform program. He says of the meeting, ‘We exchanged presentations and Council representatives explained how disadvantaged Byron Shire is compared to the state’s other 151 councils.’ ‘It’s not just the 1.5 million annual visitors that come here, but also the landslips, the cyclones and beach erosions which contribute to high infrastructure maintenance costs.’ Council’s funding allocation from the state is calculated from many factors. He says, ‘It’s not just the ratepayer base and property values, but infrastructure such as the length of roads and bridges and a range of disability factors.’ $1m surplus target met He’s held the top job for just eight months, and when he took the reins, Council’s financial situation was looking bleak. ‘We were told by the Treasury Corporation, on behalf of the Department of Local Government, that we had no further capacity to borrow funds until we improved our capacity to meet loan redemption obligations.’ And while it will take a long time to get on top of overall debt, he says financial stability has already been achieved after restructuring and efficiency measures. Remarkably a target of a $1 million accumulated surplus has already been reached, well before expectations. While negotiations with staff are ongoing, he says, ‘the top level of executive management has been pared back to three directors and an executive position.’ Other measures that could help Council get into the black include selling and better managing some of its property. He says around 15 years ago, Ballina Council helped to turn around its finances by developing and managing the property it owned. So what plans has he got for Byron? Apart from subdividing and selling the contentious Ocean Shores Roundhouse, he says a factory-sized parcel in the Byron Arts & Industry Estate will soon be up for sale. ‘Initially we are looking at the low- hanging fruit,’ he says. And while the former Telstra land next to the Mullumbimby Woolworths is currently being rezoned and prepared for sale, he says that due to site contamination, ‘I would expect to see a loss after the sale.’ But he’s hopeful that the old Byron Bay Public Library building could eventually be transformed into a successful commercial hub. Located in the CBD, he says in future years it could provide good returns if appropriately developed. As for Council meetings, he says transparency has improved after confidential session rules were refined. ‘A council is required to go into confidential session where a price comparison between tenderers is discussed, for example. But that also meant other discussions were not heard in public. Councillors now only enter confidential sessions when absolutely necessary.’ 40 years’ experience in local govt The Bangalow resident and former Lismore City Council GM says after years working away, he feels that this region is his home. Last week he addressed the Bangalow Lions Club, and will be guest speaker at the Byron business chamber annual general meeting on November 7. ‘I’ve been in local government for 40 years, and this council is one of the best I’ve worked with,’ he enthused. ‘Despite some differing political opinions, everyone works very well together.’ He also says he has seen a huge improvement in staff morale, and, along with councillors, has encouraged creative and innovative suggestions from staff. ‘They are certainly less “risk averse” these days,’ he says. You can see councillors and staff in action this Thursday at the Mullumbimby chambers from 9am. This week’s agenda is available at www.byron.nsw.gov.au. The NSW government’s draft controversial planning reforms were overwhelmingly rejected at the Local Government NSW (LGNSW) 2013 annual conference, held in Sydney last week.
It’s the latest thumbs-down for the NSW coalition’s plans, which critics say will strip the rights of communities to reject inappropriate developments. LGNSW is the peak body representing the state’s 152 councils, and Byron Shire councillors Di Woods and Alan Hunter both attended the conference. The conference’s outcome saw LGNSW delegates agree that community participation should be enshrined ‘at all stages of planning’. Serious flaws They also voted to, ‘Express strong concern about the removal of community consultation from any stage of the planning process and call on the NSW government to ensure all planning considerations are made with infrastructure commitments, for example childcare and transport etc.’ It was also decided to advocate that, ‘Councils are given equal status to the minister for planning and infrastructure in planning decisions,’ and that developments have ‘triple-bottom-line outcomes for planning decisions.’ Meanwhile Nature Conservation Council CEO Pepe Clarke was in Byron Bay last Friday, launching a new report – available at nccnsw.org.au – that he says, ‘exposes serious flaws in the draft Planning Bill 2013.’ He says, ‘Under the new laws, developers would have new rights to override local plans and challenge council zoning decisions, placing existing environmental protections at risk. In addition, State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP), which contain protections for sensitive environmental areas including koala habitat and rainforest, will cease to exist under the new planning system. ‘The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has raised concerns about the broad, unfettered discretion given to key decision makers, including the minister for planning and the director-general of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.’ Recently Byron Bay-based NSW coalition MP for local government and the north coast, Don Page, told The Echo he relayed community concerns about the planning overhaul to planning MP Brad Hazzard. NSW Business Chamber’s input As for input from the NSW Business Chamber: they gave feedback to the Green Paper in December last year. The Chamber said then that ‘at the local level, councillors should still have a role in leading the community in the development of broad planning policies and principles for a local area’, but added that ‘the development of Local Land Use Plans will need to be oversighted by the department of planning… to ensure that they are consistent with subregional, metropolitan and NSW plans and policies.’ The controversial legislation, which so far has gained little to no public support, is due to be debated in parliament next month. The former Byron Council staffer and now manager of the state government-owned private enterprise, North Coast Holiday Parks (NCHP), has hit back at claims his parks do not contribute back to the community since he took over administration from Byron Shire Council in 2006.
But questions still remain as to why Council’s financial returns are extraordinarly lower than before the takeover. NCHP general manager Jim Bolger told The Echo that a major amount is paid directly back into the Shire via Council. ‘Other amounts paid for reserve maintenance and or improvement by NCHP vary from year to year determined by the work needed to be performed. Plans for the upgrades of the day use reserves in Brunswick Heads will be exhibited toward the end of this year. These plans will identify extensive improvement works to be funded from caravan park revenue.’ The questions come after a recent press release by a public relations company on behalf of NCHP that claimed, ‘guests can be confident that the profits from the dollars they invest are returned to the people of NSW and their coastal recreation zones.’ Council’s media officer confirmed that in 2011/12 the amount paid by NCHP for three Brunswick Heads caravan parks was $196,818, and is listed under the ‘Open Space And Recreation Program’ in the budget. As a comparison to when Council managed the parks over ten years ago, Council’s 2001/2002 annual report says that The Terrace Park generated $380,000, Massey Greene $270,000 and the Ferry Reserve $121,200, equalling a profit of $771,200. Another snapshot a few years later in 2003/2004 reveal a higher figure of $860,653. Council’s community infrastructure executive manager, Phil Holloway, said the income was spent across all Council reserves as per a 2007 agreement with the then-called North Coast Crown Lands Division. ‘Council also receives income for Crown reserve works from the paid parking on Main Beach, Byron Bay, and fees from market licences.’ He says the funds can only be expended on works in the area to which the income was generated. Is local MP Don Page the minister for, or against, local government?
That’s the question posed by the peak body representing NSW councils after Mr Page refused to support the inclusion of local government or councils in the Australian Constitution. It comes in response to the upcoming referendum on the topic, to be included with the September election. Currently councils are an operational arm of state governments and only two tiers of government are recognised in our constitution. Councils currently receive the majority of their funding from municipal rates and council fees, but also receive grants and subsidies from state and territory governments. There is also direct federal funding via initiatives such as the Roads to Recovery program, the Regional Development Fund and Low Carbon Communities, but the legality of some of these grants has been challenged in the High Court. The court cases have prompted the referendum in a deal brokered by the Greens/independents and Labor at the last election. Mr Page told ABC radio last week, ‘You could easily envisage a situation where a couple of marginal seats in a federal election would be benefited by large cash injections from the Commonwealth on the eve of the election to fund a particular piece of infrastructure. So you would have a large amount of money going to a project that was for political reasons but wasn’t actually part of the state plan.’ Those comments prompted an outraged response from Local Government NSW’s joint presidents Cr Ray Donald and Cr Keith Rhoades AFSM, who accused Mr Page of ‘scaremongering and ill-informed information’ that is ‘misleading the people of NSW.’ ‘Given the recent TCorp report into NSW council finances,’ Cr Donald said, ‘it’s astounding the NSW coalition government won’t support a practical change to the Constitution securing tens of millions of dollars each year for NSW communities and their infrastructure.’ Cr Rhoades added, ‘It seems a tad contradictory for the NSW coalition government to trumpet criticism of councils’ financial sustainability, then fail to support a referendum which would protect federal grants for the most basic community needs, like local roads.’ O’Farrell’s reasoning But in a letter from NSW premier Barry O’Farrell to then federal minister for local government, Simon Crean, Mr O’Farrell outlines his reasoning for objecting to recognition. ‘The NSW government is of the view that amendments to the Constitution should not be made in the absence of clear evidence that existing funding arrangements are deficient. ‘While the government acknowledged that the High Court’s decision in Pape and Williams may have cast some doubt on the appropriateness of the direct funding of local government by the Commonwealth, it is noted that neither the Expert Panel’s report nor the Joint Select Committee interim report have identified any new significant issues with the financial arrangements that currently exist between all three tiers of government.’ Mr O’Farrell also says the amendment, as proposed in the committee’s interim report, will allow the federal government to grant funds directly to local government, ‘which could result in NSW 2021 and other major state policies being sidetracked or not given due regard… ‘This could also raise expectations that the Commonwealth could intervene in local government administration, thereby creating confusion about all tiers of government and responsibilities… it blurs the line of accountability.’ Instead, Mr O’Farrell says he supports ‘symbolic recognition as a way of enhancing the status of local governments.’ Meanwhile Mr Page hit back at the LGNSW joint presidents, telling The Echo they have known about the letter for months and, with an election for the LGNSW presidency coming up in October, that ‘might explain Keith Rhoads’s behaviour!’ He added local government is already recognised in the NSW Constitution. Unsurprisingly it’s sparked divided opinions across state and federal parties; however, Victoria, along with NSW, has rejected it so far. Federal Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce said Thursday that his party will support it, and that a caveat in the amendment to section 96 ensures that authorisation from the state is required for councils to collect money from the federal government. ‘It is the lowest-taxing level of government and rates go straight back into the facilities and services used by that community.’ And Greens MLC and former Byron Shire mayor Jan Barham told The Echo she supports inclusion as it ‘plays a crucial role in the democracy of Australia.’ She says direct transfers from a federal level have been very successful, and that ‘Other funding programs that are directed via the state governments result in a loss of direct funding to councils with the state administration costs of approximately 22 per cent without genuine benefit to the community.’ Altered constitution As for the two amendments, or alterations, it’s just 17 words and can be found at http://regional.gov.au. Section 96’s heading is ‘Financial assistance to states’ and it is proposed to be changed to ‘Financial assistance to states and local government bodies.’ Additionally, section 96 itself would be altered to read, ‘During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any state, or to any local government body formed by a law of a state, on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.’ Radical changes that would see a ‘fundamental shift’ in power from local councils to the state government have been blasted by NSW’s peak representative body, Local Government NSW (LGNSW).
And despite the reforms being now on hold, the minister responsible for local government, local Ballina MP Don Page, was accused of failing to consult LGNSW at an urgent meeting held on March 15. Additionally, detail on the Early Intervention Bill is vague and lacks detail, says joint president of LGNSW, Cr Keith Rhoades AFSM. ‘If passed, this legislation will undermine the democratic responsibilities of mayors and councils elected by residents and ratepayers by making councils responsible to the minister,’ he said. ‘The lack of detail and broad scope for the ‘Performance Improvement Order’ criteria is extremely worrying. The NSW government needs to give a clearer definition of what constitutes a ‘non-functioning’ and ‘noneffective’ council.’ Presently, councils can only be dismissed by the NSW governor if a public inquiry has been held and if the minister for local government recommends the dismissal. There are 152 NSW local government bodies and Mr Page told parliament there were, ‘no less than 10 cases’ that cost millions in recent years.’ [Hansard transcription] Additionally he says, ‘for the first time in 17 years, there are no councils under administration’. So why is this such a priority? Mr Page told The Echo, ‘We have had a small number of councils who have become dysfunctional and if this legislation had been in place the problems would have been sorted out. ‘For example last year a Sydney council had a group of councillors who kept walking out of the chamber so a quorum could not be maintained and matters could not be dealt with. This went on for many months! ‘There is currently no provision in the Local Government Act to deal with such a situation. By being able to nip problems in the bud there will be fewer dismissals in future.’ The power to suspend a whole council already exists in a number of other jurisdictions including Western Australia and Queensland Mr Page told parliament. [Hansard transcription, February 26, 2013] He also referenced a recently published NSW auditor-general’s report, Monitoring Local Government, which, ‘also supported the need for government to have greater powers in tackling poor performance.’ The amendment While the lengthy 26 page amendment to the Local Government Act includes much detail on what powers the state wants, it’s sparse on how councils can appeal. One notable proposal is a ‘consultation period of not less than 21 days,’ for submissions. And being suspended means a total lockout – there would be no pay or ‘use of council facilities’. The amendment, available at http://bit.ly/XqZHKZ, would enable the minister for local government or the director general to demand documents about the council, its operations or its activities; enable the minister to issue ‘performance improvement order’ to enable the minister to suspend a council for a period of up to three months or more,’ provide for the appointment of interim administrators; and to allow other minor and miscellaneous amendments. Page’s response As for the Local Government NSW claims of not being consulted, Mr Page told The Echo his department has had three consultations so far, ‘Two as minister with the presidents and one at officer level, with more to come. We are working through the issues and I have no intention of rushing the Bill through. ‘Effectively it’s on hold while we conclude our discussions, which have been very constructive. ‘LGNSW received the Bill on February 14 and raised no concerns until recently. ‘The processes provided before a performance improvement order are being worked through by the government and LGNSW. ‘Notwithstanding, the minister must give notice of a performance improvement order, state exactly what the problem is – not just to the council but publicly – and the council has 21 days to say what they are going to do to improve. ‘After saying what they propose to do they have time to carry out their plan. It is only if they refuse to solve the problem after all the requests etc have been made that a minister can consider the three month suspension option. ‘The things that could trigger an order to improve would be non-compliance with state legislation etc or continual refusal to allow a quorum to be formed preventing council from operating.’ He also denies it’s a power grab. ‘To the contrary – it’s a sensible means of addressing problems before they get to a point where after a long period of dysfunction a public inquiry is ordered and a council is sacked, which is the only option now when dysfunction occurs.’ Railroaded Shadow NSW Labor local government minister Sophie Cotsis told The Echo that what is being proposed is a ‘new section, not an amendment.’ She says she is ‘getting letters from residents about this, and the government should be worried.’ ‘They tried to ram this through despite the act being reviewed,’ she said, referring to the Local Government Act 1993, a review of which is due in September. She claims that 27 councils and mayors across Sydney have also discussed the proposals at a recent meeting. ‘They feel railroaded,’ she said. Former mayor, independent state and federal member Ted Mack told Fairfax last week, ‘If the government thinks this approach is worthwhile, why stop at local government? ‘Why not give agencies such as the ombudsman, the auditor-general or the ICAC the power to issue ‘performance improvement orders’ against poorly performing state government ministers, with the authority to make recommendations to the governor that these ministers be dismissed if they fail to comply?’ Local state MP Don Page and federal MP Justine Elliot have defended claims of cost-shifting from state and federal governments to local government by the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA).
It comes after the LGSA released findings that they say cost NSW councils nearly $500 million in the 2010/11 financial year. President of the Shires AssociationofNSW,CrRayDonald, said it equates to 5.72 per cent of the total income of local government in NSW, before capital amounts. ‘Findings of the LGSA’s cost-shifting survey for 2010/11 are consistent with results of the last five surveys carried out over the previous five financial years, highlighting the continual moves by the state and federal governments to palm their responsibilities on to local government without the corresponding funding. ‘The LGSA has asked the same 23 questions in the past five surveys, with an additional two questions added to the 2009/10 survey and again in collecting the 2010/11 data. ‘If we include those two additional questions, which relate to revenue-raising restrictions on council-managed Crown lands and the shortfall of cost recovery as a result of fee regulation when assessing development applications, cost shifting is estimated at 6.37 per cent of local government’s total income before capital amounts – or $555 million. ‘This survey confirms that cost shifting continues to be a burden on the financial situation of NSW councils and is impeding local government’s ability to deliver services and maintain infrastructure.’ Don Page, minister for local government and north coast, told The Echo, ‘I believe councils have experienced cost shifting in the past by both state and federal governments. ‘The survey results for 2010/11 only include three months (April, May, June 2011) of the state Liberal National government, prior to that being the previous Labor administration. ‘As the minister for local government I am keen to reduce or eliminate cost shifting to local government and am in the process of discussing with the LGSA a new intergovernmental agreement (IGA) designed to improve communications and consultation between state and local government and to reduce cost shifting. ‘By the way, cost shifting occurs from federal to state governments as well – for example, older people who should be in a nursing home (federally funded) are being cared for in our hospital system (state funded). I was pleased to hear the president of the Shires Association say at a local government conference last year (2012) that he was pleased with the lack of cost shifting that had happened since the new state government had been elected in 2011. ‘This was an encouraging comment and I hope it can be kept that way, although of course cost shifting typically happens beyond the local government portfolio. I have also ordered a review of the Local Government Act, part of which will clarify local government responsibilities, which should in turn reduce cost shifting.’ Richmond Labor Justine Elliot told The Echo, ‘In 2011–12, local governments across the nation received directly from the federal government $2.74 billion in general financial assistance grants. ‘This is in addition to other funding councils receive from the federal government for specific purposes such as black-spot funding or regional development funding. State to blame: Elliot ‘The NSW ALGA report relates to general cost shifting they consider has occurred as a consequence of the transfer of functions and assets to local government. The bulk of transfers in functions relate to state government activities transferred to local government as identified in the recent productivity commission’s review on regulatory issues. ‘The major transfer of assets from the Commonwealth to local government was the transfer of airports to local government, which the Commonwealth would argue was fully funded. Other matters relating to Commonwealth activity are the regulatory costs associated with EPBC and other requirements associated with land, which the Commonwealth would not necessarily agree to classify as cost shifting.’ Essential services But president of the Local Government Association of NSW, Cr Keith Rhoades AFSM, says, ‘Some of the major cost-shifting items identified in the survey include mandatory contributions to Fire and Rescue NSW, NSW Rural Fire Services and NSW State Emergency Service, inadequate funding for public libraries and the NSW government’s failure to reimburse councils for mandatory pensioner rebates for rates,’ said Cr Rhoades. ‘From controlling noxious weeds and managing contaminated land to enforcing the Companion Animals Act NSW (1998) – councils are constantly carrying out activities and regulatory functions for the state and federal governments without sufficient financial resources. ‘This is on top of the financial restrictions placed on the 152 councils across the state, courtesy of the NSW government’s rate-pegging system. ‘It’s not surprising the 2010/11 cost shifting amount of $499 million is equal to the estimated annual infrastructure renewal gap of $500 million per annum, as found in the Percy Allan Report. ‘While the NSW government says that councils are often best placed to provide these cost shifted services to communities, councils do not have the means to keep taking on new jobs without adequate resourcing.’ To view the full survey report, visit: http://www.lgsa.org. au/policy/fin. |
Categories
All
Archives
November 2014
|