RATEPAYERS ARE BEING DONE OVER AND WHO IS WATCHING?

•

It’s all getting a bit much. Ratepayers are at the mercy of Local Government bureaucrats and it seems that for a lot of the time they are quite unaware of the extent of it. It is these Local Govt. types who set the rates to meet their operational needs, even if the Aldermen sign off on them.

Local Govt. management has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo at least, or better still, increasing the operational spend, as typically there are positive spin-offs for senior staff. These may come in the form of salary increases related to increases in responsibility measured against the size of the spend officers have responsibility for. And that's just the start.

In this kind of environment ratepayers typically become hapless bystanders as the imposts on their available incomes grow. Oftentimes, these imposts grow exponentially, unreasonably and unsustainably. Rates are payments for service NOT a 'Wealth Tax'! Aside from ratepayers’ capacity to pay is the issue of service outputs commensurate with ratepayers' inputs/investment.

On top of this some Councils, Launceston being one, where there are imposts on ratepayers that are attributable to ‘non-core’ service provision. There is scope for considerable debate as to the extent to which some of these things are indeed ‘non-core’. That's another story.

Nevertheless, it is probably time that ratepayers started to demonstrate their dissatisfaction rather than complacently going along with these imposts that grow exponentially and as often as not in a hidden way and increased by subterfuge.

It is also time to hold those accountable to account – Aldermen & Councillors – and make representations to them to hold their – Council's & ratepayers' – officers to account. The elected representatives can always be held to account at the next election but staff can only be accountable at the insistence of elected representatives. It's time that they did so.

What are ratepayers looking for?

Well the delivery of some kind of appropriate dividend, social, cultural, whatever, commensurate with their investment in non-core services would be something worth looking at.

What might be done?

One option might well be for ratepayers to withhold that part of their rates attributable to non-core services until their elected representatives are proactively, and demonstrably, providing accountability to ratepayers and holding officers accountable.

How might this be done?

It has been suggested that one way might be for a Trust Account be established to enable ratepayers to deposit their contribution to ‘non-core’ service provision as an alternative to handing it directly to Council. These funds could be released to the Mayor conditional upon there being an undertaking to proactively address accountability issues.

Imagine a newspaper story with a photograph of ratepayers in a queue at a bank depositing their ‘non-core’ rate contribution into a Trust Account.

It is an interesting thought!