The proposal is currently under consideration by IPART, whose report is expected early this year, and it came from the LLS Board of Chairs. The board is the organisation’s governing body and its members are the chairs of the 11 LLS districts, and Mr Hietbrink is a member.

“The thinking behind it is primarily that there are a lot of properties … around the Sydney basin and Newcastle and Wollongong and areas like that … below 10 hectares, where they have horses, chooks and other livestock, that are not at the moment captured in the LHPA rating system,” Mr Hietbrink said. 

“Consequently those properties do pose a bio-security risk. 

“This is the question that’s been raised: why should people who benefit from the farmland produce and everything else, not be required to contribute towards it? That was the issue that was the main consideration in looking at a recommendation to put to IPART.”

Another part of the proposal put to IPART was the issue of rates collection, and it was recommended that local councils play a role, should the Minister of Agriculture, Katrina Hodgkinson, decide legislate accordingly.

Inverell Shire Council general manager Paul Henry said he saw the new LLS as an option for council.

“Clearly there are opportunities for council to work with the LLS on their ground service delivery,” Mr Henry said.

“It’s up to the government as to how they deal with the recommendations coming from IPART. If the government passes legislation, which requires council to collect rates or levies on behalf of the LLS, well council can’t avoid that legislative responsibility. But there’s a long way to go on that issue.”

Mayor Paul Harmon thinks changes could see difficulty for Inverell.

“It’ll a capture a lot of people who aren’t currently paying a fee … it’ll be a bigger net to cast to capture more people to pay more funds. So once again we get back to that revenue raising issue,” Cr Harmon said.

“It was really concerning to us because there’s no real nexus between someone who lives, say in or Runnymede or Fernhill roads, and what aspect they have for LLS services,” Cr Harmon said.

“The other thing we were concerned about was the fact that it was…also on land that council might be the trustee on … so it would have quite a significant impact on council.

“It’s got prickles all over it and I know that we were putting in a submission back to that report strongly opposing it.”

Member for New England Adam Marshall welcomed the new LLS and described its transition as “seamless”, but said he did not agree with the Board of Chairs proposal to IPART.

“That’s certainly something that I don’t support, and I don’t support it because I fail to see the nexus between urban ratepayers and the services LLS’s provide, which are tailored basically to the rural community,” Mr Marshall said.

“It’s been a submission that I think has been poorly justified by the chair’s board when they made their submission. 

“The decision was taken that for the first two years of the LLS’s the system would remain exactly the same as it was for the old LHPA. That would give two years breathing space to determine a new rating model to fund LLS’s

Shadow Minister for Resources and Primary Industries Steve Whan said he had already visited the 10 hectares versus two hectares issue. 

“It’s something which causes a great deal of angst for people who own small blocks,” Mr Whan said.

“It is politically quite a fraught thing to do, and I know that from experience, because we tried to do it when we were in government. We then had a review and actually changed back to the 10 mark.

“I am very well aware that this has a lot of political danger in it for the Minister. I suspect for the Minister to go ahead with it, it would be as they used to say in Yes Minister, ‘That’s a very brave decision Minister’.”

B Editorial, page 6