Also, how will a new saleyards service Western Victorian livestock trading needs, optimise co-location of new industries and services opportunities and optimise wealth creation and job opportunities for Ballarat and its region? And what are the consequences for Miners Rest if the new saleyards are established there – both opportunities gained and opportunities lost?

To gain insight into these issues I have considered background reports prepared by and on behalf of the City of Ballarat (COB) and the report prepared by the saleyards proponent, Regional Infrastructure Pty Limited (RIPL). I have talked with the head of COB strategic planning, neighbouring shire council mayors, local livestock traders, Latrobe Street businesses and Miners Rest residents. I have also examined the zoning of other new Australian saleyards and their distance from nearby cities and towns.

These inquiries, and an analysis based on them, is the minimum requirement for achieving an understanding sufficient to make a good decision on the saleyards’ future. Has the COB achieved this basic requirement to adequately inform its forthcoming decision?  The answer is a resounding ‘No’. My discussions with council officers showed clearly they have not addressed this decision’s strategic context. My discussions with neighbouring mayors showed COB has made no attempt to engage regional stakeholders.

So what has our council done to determine a new saleyards location? It has failed to work with regional stakeholders on long-term regional agri-business opportunities, which should go hand in hand with the new saleyards. It has failed to carry out strategic and local area planning for Miners Rest, which is an essential pre-requisite for specific planning decisions. It has uncritically supported the agenda of RIPL. It has spent unknown thousands of ratepayers’ money on lawyers to prosecute the case for the Miners Rest relocation against its own citizens and regional stakeholders.  At the panel hearing, RIPL’s lawyers, council’s lawyers and council officers worked from a similar standpoint to refute the case put by residents and other stakeholders.  

And what of the review panel itself? The panel’s strategic issues consideration referred only to COB documents and established planning policy.  The panel explicitly stated its job is not to examine the merits of alternative sites, or to test the veracity and adequacy of council’s planning.  By artificially limiting the scope of its inquiry and uncritically accepting poor policy input, the panel’s conclusions only reinforce the COB’s current poor planning  As a consequence, the panel’s consideration of the strategic context of the proposal is so limited, their conclusions cannot be regarded as strategic at all. The panel’s report is based on incomplete evidence and questionable assumptions. Its analysis lacks thoroughness and rigour.  Therefore, its conclusions cannot be considered a reliable guide for councillors in making a decision about the saleyards’ future.