New South Wales Local Government Minister Ron Hoenig’s day started inelegantly and was resembling a Brechtian farce by mid-afternoon. Most closely, the infamous 2003 Belvoir St production of the Threepenny Opera.
After almost a decade of Labor pretending it opposed the Coalition’s forced council mergers (which has handed it far greater power to thump councils that resist its heavily pro-developer playbook), morning radio started with a mayor on the leafy north shore saying he’d see the government in court over new planning permissions.
Sam Ngai isn’t what you’d typically expect of a leader from the defiantly leafy mid-to-upper north shore, which is home to a swag of Sydney’s more expensive private schools and where reading German helps if applying for a job as a mechanic.
The early-40s Hong Kong-born software engineer and accountant mustered a unanimous council vote to test the state government on the legal limits of its development and infill agenda through the courts. Ngai spent his formative years in Kowloon.
He knows the reality of lived urban density, not imagined one-off renders.
Premier Chris Minns immediately accused Ngai of wasting rate payers’ money. Rates on the upper north shore may be high but they are generally a lesser concern to its residents than taxation liabilities or concessions. And there are possibly more bored LLBs per square kilometre in the teetotaling tree zone than in any other part of Sydney.
There is form here, too. Renegade leafy Liberal councils had little problem taking on former premier Mike Baird when he decided to pull the pin on one of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s thoroughly dumb and internecine ideas.
A decent number of those councils won too, not least the so-called monied fortresses of Woollahra and Mosman. Those victories have not been forgotten, and not because of the tears, barricades and police brutality; quite the opposite. They took time but were surprisingly, well, straightforward.
Herein lies a bit of a problem for Hoenig. Not only is there a lack of fear of litigation against the government of the day, but there’s a recent memory of tangible victory. Home and property owners don’t really have much to lose by waiting, not unless it’s a deceased estate (and there are plenty) that needs to be sold within two years to avoid capital gains tax (CGT).
If the net gain on holding out against a developer plumping a full price is +30%, it’s a no-brainer. If it’s more, someone will fund your litigation.
But let’s get back to the dud demerger bill.
“Under the Government’s new laws, councils seeking to demerge must work in close consultation with their community to ensure local democracy is enshrined throughout the entire process,” a statement from Hoenig said.
That will be the close and obstructive consultation that was avoided to achieve the merger. Whatevs.
“The new pathway will require councils to develop a robust business case for de-amalgamation with community input so that residents are adequately informed of potential implications upfront.
“The business case should consider the impacts of de-amalgamation including financial ramifications, long-term strategic plans, and the capacity of new councils to deliver services.
“The Minister will then refer the business case to the Local Government Boundaries Commission for independent review and assessment.”
Oh, joy!
But wait, there’s more.
“If the Minister is satisfied by the Boundaries Commission’s recommendation a proposal is sound, a compulsory referendum may then be held to give the community the final say on whether they wish to de-amalgamate.
The majority of the community must support this vote for the demerger to proceed.”
Gronkonomics. What’s not to love?
READ MORE:
