Regional Vision and Structural Reform Council Tuesday, 10 December 2019 1
Boundary ry Meeting: Gawler – 2 December 2019 2019 LRC’s Position - Defer ‘Boundaries’ Process: REDIRECT resources pursuing and implementing a Regional Deal Responses - Gawler – continue with Boundary Reform and By RDA to pursue the Regional Deal Mayors (Vision) - Barossa – continue with Boundary reform “high level submission” and await Commission’s direction – support the Regional Vision. 2
Preferred Position (put to Boundaries Commission 30.10.19) Status Quo Restored That the Town of Gawler and the Barossa Council withdraw their proposals based on their apparent lack of community support and that the Regional Collaboration Model be restored. “ In the event that Council’s preferred position above cannot be achieved through the Boundaries Commission process then an Alternative by Light Regional Council ought to be placed before the Commission pursuant to Section 26 of the Local Government Act as the Gawler and Barossa proposals are fundamentally flawed from a Regional Perspective.” 3
nd December 2019 Post 2 nd “Boundaries” Meeting IF: No change by - The Barossa Council; and - Town of Gawler 4
Alternative – Structure Reform “If status quo is not restored” 5
Boundary Commission’s Process Risks Commission has • Barossa control of outcomes Commission and $ Risk and Minister decides Investigates • Gawler Proposals • LRC – Sovereign The Barossa Council Risk (exist or not) STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 1 and The Town of Gawler Costs to the Compensation initiating Council Transfer of Assets (automatic) Light Regional Council role? Note: Mayor, The Barossa Council has been to Adelaide Plains Council suggesting they take Light Regional Council residual! 6
State Preparation for Change 1. State Government – Changes to LG Act S.26 – 1/1/19 2. LGA (SA) – Training Programs Comment “If State Government Policy is to get local government to cannibalise each other, then this is good legislation – “ Don’t believe this to be the case” If not , then it is bad legislation.” * PARLIAMENT’S INTENT – “Needs to be understood” 7
Parliament’s Intent • Was the intent to deal with Boundary Problems • If so; then an initiating Council should be required to articulate the Problem before suggesting Boundary changes. • Boundary -v- “Structural - Very Problems Reform” Different 8
State Legislation / Guidelines • Allows Boundary Proposals to be submitted. • Boundary Commission – The Final Authority on Any Changes • Guidelines – Centre around process o No mention of Boundary Problem o No mention of Council Competency • New System – No Precedents to follow / guide “ Unchartered Waters ” 9
Boundaries Commission (Recent Remarks) • Boundaries Commission emphasised that it alone would be the Final Authority on Any Changes • The Boundaries Commission Chair , Bruce Green said “ I emphasise that while the new system enables individual councils to initiate proposals, and make a case to the Commission that they be investigated, the Commission – not the initiating Council – has the responsibility to investigate these proposals and make recommendations to the Minister”. 10
Observations • Boundary Problem should come First • Competency standing (akin to legal standing) ought to be a pre- requisite test before a proposal can be lodged with Boundaries Commission. 11
Resolution of Boundary Anomalies To initiate boundary reform ought to require the initiating Council to articulate the Boundary PROBLEM with reasons and evidence. Note : This is different to “ Structural Reform ” 12
To Responsibly Progress a Proposal - Initiating Council ought to demonstrate that it has COMPETENCY standing. (“Akin” to Legal Standing – Locus Standi) Measures of COMPETENCY to include:- • Governance • $ Management • Community Management 13
Political Environment Barossa Proposed Stay as we are! + 32% - 32% Light Change Gawler “Preferred Position” LRC Rebuttal • Boundaries Commission - - - - - - - State Government State Government - - - - - - • Minister of Local Gov. Policy • Local MP’s 1. Reform 2. “Enabling” Legislation Dan van Stephan ie S.26 LG Act Holst Knoll 14 Pellekaan
Electoral District of Schubert • Stephan Knoll • Minister of: o Planning o Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government • Boundary Proposals – within the seat of Schubert 15
Boundarie ies Commis ission Perspectiv ive Barossa Light Gawler Proposals Rebuttal (Change) (Status Quo) State Community Government 1. Reform Agenda Initial Response 2. “Enabling” Negative to Barossa Legislation (S26) Gawler Proposals 16
How wil ill Boundaries Commission Respond? 1. Run the PROCESS as per Section 26 Local Government Act. 2. Barossa and Gawler will spend the $; with Boundaries Commission support . . . . as it is State Government Policy (LG Act – Amended January 2019) 3. Barossa and Gawler will actively seek community support! for the changes (verbally advising that they have support) 4. Light will actively seek community support! For no change (evidence of support for this position provided to Boundaries Commission) Note 3 and 4 – like an election; except Boundaries Commission/Minister Decides 5. Boundaries Commission will get the information via the process and REPORT to the Minister 6. State Government (Minister) decides 17
Ris isk Assessment Current Situation • Barossa and Gawler proposals - $ Cost • Light (rebuttal) - $ Cost and Sovereign Risk LRC Residual – unsustainable – 32% (loss of capacity to deliver Roseworthy, etc) • Boundaries Commission - Can make amendments at its discretion (Section 31 – LG Act) - Note: Guidelines “Commission to give preference to Structural Changes” 18
IM IMPACTS Broken Up and Distributed Additional Territory • Current Operation Disruption • Current Operation continues (12 months, plus) • Determine the allocation of • Merge allocated resources into resources existing operations 19
Boundary Proposals - Options 1. DEFER/WITHDRAW- pursue Regional Vision (Part 2) in collaboration (4 Councils) Position put on 2 December 2019 (rejected by Mayors) 2. DEFEND - “ Status Quo” – maintain the argument that Barossa and Gawler Council proposals are fundamentally flawed 3. ALTERNATIVE - In the absence of restoring ‘Status Quo’ Put forward a ‘STRUCTURAL REFORM’ option in the Region’s interest including the Regional Vision (Part 2) (Note LRC to pursue Regional Vision Part 1 irrespective of Option Chosen) 20
nd December 2019 Post 2 nd “Boundaries” Meeting Option 2 - Defend the “Status Quo”; pursue Regional Deal (Part 1) only, at this stage. Option 3 - Alternative In the absence of restoring ‘Status Quo’ put forward (Structural Reform) and Regional Deal (Part 2) Package 21
Regional Deal (P (Part 1) ) - - - “shovel ready” - - - LRC to pursue Governance LRC (CEO) Oskar and Kidman and EDP Seppeltsfield Kapunda SA Hoteliers Seppeltsfield Project Community Reference Group Reference Group (Consortium) Wines Kieren Chappell, etal + Consultants Private Sector Partner(s) 22
23
ALTERNATIVE • Structural Reform; with • Regional Vision (Part 2) (Not LRC Preference BUT will submit if FORCED) 24
The Town of Gawler Continues with the inclusion of “CONCORDIA” And with the exclusion of WILLASTON ( Subject to Community Support ) 25
LRC and BAROSSA with without Willaston Concordia • New council • New Name NOT PUTTING “BAROSSA” brand at risk ( Subject to Community Support ) 26
Not one of these “BRANDS” allows a political or Famous Brand government institution; such as a local Council; to use its brand name – the RISK to the brand is too Names great. 27
28
Risk Profile Alternative • Barossa, Gawler and Light - $ Cost • Barossa and Light - Sovereign “ Change” New Council 29
Structural Reform Based on 7 Core Platforms (D (Draft) 1. Natural Geographical - Take into account Waterways (Gawler and North Para Rivers) as natural boundaries Features 2. Productivity - Progressive reduction of input costs (Overheads) by effluxion of time 3. Environmental - Integrate existing Water Re-use Schemes and expand into Eden Valley - Increase Resources into Tourism Arts and Economic initiatives 4. Economic 5. Tourism - De-risk the iconic BAROSSA brand name - Upgrade key tourism routes. - Strong alignment with Regional Vision and community benefits within a 6. Social Regional context. 7. Capacity - Ensuring that the Local Government areas “re - established” have the capacity to deliver the Regional Vision for the Regional Community. 30
Recommend
More recommend
