Council in Tasmania are striking their 2010-2011 rates and for some ratepayers it is not a happy time. In Launceston the rate rise is on average 5.5%. So long as rates continue to rise incrementally the ability of a great many ratepayers decreases incrementally. Launceston's ratepayers have been advocating a change to the method of striking the rates but they have had no joy at all to date.
By and large their Aldermen have let them down and it seems that the tail is still wagging the dog at Town Hall in Launceston. Council officers seem to be delivering Alderman with an ultimatum that is otherwise called a budget. It seems that they (the officers) decide upon the method that suits their purposes best. Yes, that's the one that maintains status quo staffing levels, determines salary levels and delivers bonuses plus benefits the higher up the pecking order you go. In short it seems that their is no incentive whatsoever for Council officers to lower the rate base.
Then we come to Aldermen and Councilors. Again it seems that they are presented with budget that is in fact a 'fete de compli'. It also seems they do not have the appetite to take their officers on in the cause of delivering a more equitable system. Some officers even go so far as to suggest that "rates are a kind of wealth tax." From the luxurious position of being relatively highly paid and being appointed rather than elected that's a bit rich – and somewhat inappropriate as well.
The question about the legality of the models used by Devonport, Georgetown, Brighton Councils has been around for quite some time – there has been plenty of time to fix the legislation, and that can still be done if Councils lobbied for it. Of course, the opinions about the legality of these flat rating or capped rating municipalities are nothing more than that, opinions. The so called "delinquent councils" have been told that they are out of order – but they continue nonetheless. So why can’t other councils join them ? Launceston even?
Focusing on Launceston again, Rob Soward, paraphrased, promised to fix the system. He may have been a little naive in imagining that he could effect change all by himself , but there you go. He could only count on one vote in twelve – but after all it was election time. Interestingly only one Alderman on LCC voted against the 5.5% rate rise, Ald. Ball, and Ald. Soward was missing in action – he voted for the rise. Nonetheless Ald Soward has said that he had :
Clearly, there is an equity issue to be answered here not to mention the fact that other budget restraints are necessary. Over the same period, council’s budget increased by $30 million. Who benefits form this? It certainly isn't the ratepayers. This an issue that is not going to go away and it is one where Aldermen/Councillors and Council officer alike will be called upon to engage with their constituencies
By and large their Aldermen have let them down and it seems that the tail is still wagging the dog at Town Hall in Launceston. Council officers seem to be delivering Alderman with an ultimatum that is otherwise called a budget. It seems that they (the officers) decide upon the method that suits their purposes best. Yes, that's the one that maintains status quo staffing levels, determines salary levels and delivers bonuses plus benefits the higher up the pecking order you go. In short it seems that their is no incentive whatsoever for Council officers to lower the rate base.
Then we come to Aldermen and Councilors. Again it seems that they are presented with budget that is in fact a 'fete de compli'. It also seems they do not have the appetite to take their officers on in the cause of delivering a more equitable system. Some officers even go so far as to suggest that "rates are a kind of wealth tax." From the luxurious position of being relatively highly paid and being appointed rather than elected that's a bit rich – and somewhat inappropriate as well.
The question about the legality of the models used by Devonport, Georgetown, Brighton Councils has been around for quite some time – there has been plenty of time to fix the legislation, and that can still be done if Councils lobbied for it. Of course, the opinions about the legality of these flat rating or capped rating municipalities are nothing more than that, opinions. The so called "delinquent councils" have been told that they are out of order – but they continue nonetheless. So why can’t other councils join them ? Launceston even?
Focusing on Launceston again, Rob Soward, paraphrased, promised to fix the system. He may have been a little naive in imagining that he could effect change all by himself , but there you go. He could only count on one vote in twelve – but after all it was election time. Interestingly only one Alderman on LCC voted against the 5.5% rate rise, Ald. Ball, and Ald. Soward was missing in action – he voted for the rise. Nonetheless Ald Soward has said that he had :
- "a detailed and extensive briefing (on two seperate occasions) around a number of rating models and what they can offer for Launceston (benefits/ negatives etc) . I am in favour of the so called Devonport model where rates are capped ... It is a model that would lead to very very slight increases in some rating areas (low SES areas like Waverley, Ravenswood etc) and huge reductions in prime residential areas. There would be some increases in business property rates but these would be far less than the reduction in prime residential rates- the only people who would be worse off in my view under the new "Devonport"model would be a Waverley ratepayer and resident who owned a large factory in Launceston (and I don’t think there would be too many of those) The areas that would see an increase would see an increase of around 2 percent- under CPI."
Clearly, there is an equity issue to be answered here not to mention the fact that other budget restraints are necessary. Over the same period, council’s budget increased by $30 million. Who benefits form this? It certainly isn't the ratepayers. This an issue that is not going to go away and it is one where Aldermen/Councillors and Council officer alike will be called upon to engage with their constituencies
3 comments:
It's obviously alright for Alderman Soward. On top of his salary as a full time school master (yes, with 12 weeks paid holiday every year) he gets another $30,000 a year to be a Launceston Councillor, and there are handy perks there too, like free phone calls, invitations to free events with food most nights of the week. He promised us poor ratepayers he would reduce our rates if we voted for him so we did, but he has now voted for an INCREASE. This is B****Y AMAZING! What a liar. He should resign immediately.
He is no better that that Tony at Federal level, who says he has two kinds of promises - hah !
Why doesn't he stand for the Liberal Party and that way we can make it odds-on he will never get in again.
I'm just a poor school cleaner, but one just cleaned out!
It's time to set some productivity measures on local councils so that we know efficiencies are being achived before they put their hand out for another rate hike. It is not the task of Tasmanian workers to continue to support bloated councils because they are too scared to shrink operations. Most council obligations could be run through Service Tasmania much more cheaply. Fewer working Tasmanians, more - its a fact most people cannot afford the continued hikes in rates, energy, water and housing costs. I think we need to call for a legislative response to even up the negotiations between the people and local govt. Madeleine Ogilvie Hobart
In Launceston at least it would be good to have some old fashioned line item financial reporting. The way Launceston reports on its financial affairs is so close to being opaque it doesn’t matter. Debt is consolidated as are all operational costs. This way ratepayers have no way of assessing value for money if they can persuade council officers to provide them. I’ve even asked an Alderman to explain the budget only to receive the reply that they had trouble not only understanding the financial reports but also getting useful financial reports from council officers.
Madeline is right, we need some legislative intervention to ensure better and more transparent management in local gov. in Tasmania. It is an imperative that sometime very soon we get the kind of financial reporting that actually demonstrates accountability. It looks like we will need legislation to get that.
Francis Lee – Long Suffering Ratepayer
Post a Comment