Consultant-led strategy fails as councillors face growing questions over process, cost and decision-making

• Council’s bid for a major rate rise rejected after costly consultant-led process
• Nine councillors backed external advisory support ahead of application
• Estimated $100,000 spent on preparation work for Special Rate Variation bid
• IPART rejects application in full, leaving council facing scrutiny over process
• Residents raise concerns amid ongoing cost-of-living pressures
• Questions emerge over reliance on external consultants in major funding decisions

Cessnock City Council is facing renewed scrutiny after its application for a Special Rate Variation was rejected by IPART, despite a process that included external advisory support and consultant involvement during its development.

At the 16 April 2025 Council meeting, councillors voted 9–1 to authorise the General Manager to engage an independent advisor to assist in preparing the council’s application for a proposed rate increase.

Councillors Dixon, Grine, Hill, Lea, Madden, Mason, Palmowski, Pascoe and Watton supported the motion. Councillor King voted against.

The decision followed reports outlining financial sustainability pressures and the need for additional advisory input to support the application process.

It has been reported the engagement of Professor Joseph Drew and associated advisors cost in the vicinity of $100,000, forming part of the preparation of the application submitted to IPART.

Despite this, the application was rejected in full.

The outcome has prompted renewed community discussion around council’s approach to financial planning, including the reliance on external consultants and the effectiveness of the preparation process.

Residents have raised concerns about the result, particularly given ongoing cost-of-living pressures and council’s own messaging around financial sustainability.

Critics argue the episode highlights broader questions about how major funding proposals are developed, including the balance between internal resources and external advisory support, as well as the transparency around associated costs.

For many in the community, attention has now shifted from the outcome alone to the process that led to it — including how decisions were made, how consultant input was used, and how the application was assessed before submission.

Supporters of greater transparency are calling for clearer reporting around consultant engagement, including scope of work, cost breakdowns, and how advice contributed to the final submission.

The rejection is expected to fuel ongoing debate about governance, financial decision-making, and accountability in local government.

At its core, the situation leaves a clear set of facts: a rejected rate rise application, significant preparatory expenditure involving external advisory support, and growing public demand for answers about how council processes are structured and assessed.