LETTER TO THE EDITOR
21 July 2012
The Editor,
The Examiner Newspaper
Paterson Street
LAUNCESTON 7250
Sir,
The Tasmanian
Ratepayers Association has for many years lobbied for a more equitable rates
system for local government ratepayers. In situations such as Hobart and
Launceston Councils, ratepayers in the greater metropolitan area beyond the
municipal boundary, should contribute to the cost of regional facilities that
they clearly utilize and accordingly gain a benefit.
It is with
interest that we note that Professor Dollery has reported his conclusions on
the topic of regional amalgamations of councils in the greater Launceston area
that curiously is in conflict with a similar report that southern area councils
commissioned last year from Access Economics and Delloites.
It is patently
clear that where significant facilities and services are provided to a regional
area, then all the ratepayers in that greater area ought to contribute to the
cost of such and the ongoing operations from which they benefit.
Adequate warning
of the need for contributions to be made by neighboring councils on behalf of
their ratepayers has not been heeded. A case in point was the effort made in
Launceston by former Mayor Ivan Dean, for contributions to the regional
swimming facility Launceston Aquatic, which yielded nothing in spite of Ald.
Dean announcing that he had in fact gained some agreement for contributions.
Some hapless
ratepayers argue that amalgamation of councils may be the only course, given
the lack of action or support for cost or resource sharing by neighboring
councils.
In this time of
increasing economic stress for ratepayers, there is a growing unrest in the
community because some councils, including the City of Launceston, refuse to
reign in their increasing expenditure and hence levy annual rate increases,
that are higher than cpi.
The need to
abandon the inequitable rating system based on the theoretical rental value of
a residential property, also has progressed very little, in spite of government
amendments to legislation that removes any ambiguity concerning the legality of
the popular “flat” or “capped” rating systems for residential properties.
The association
appreciates
1. the need to
have lower costs for ratepayers, but it is not convinced that mergers in themselves
will automatically reduce costs, as a larger ratepayers base will probably only
encourage the bureaucracy and the aldermen to pursue even more career and ego
enhancing expenditure and projects that the community can ill afford.
2. the logic of
LCC having a larger ratepayers base as a means to dilute its large losses on
its favorite white elephant projects like the Launceston Aquatic, Aurora
Stadium at York Park and the Queen Victoria Museums and the like.
3. that those
ratepayers in councils with more fiscal restraint than Launceston may end up
paying more under a larger merged entity.
4. that the only
way to convince the community of the worth of mergers would require councils
such as LCC to show restraint in expenditure which it has clearly not ever
shown in the past and on present performances, is unlikely to show anytime in
the near future.
5. that one way to
transition to a merged council in the northern area, would be for LCC to adopt
a flat rate structure in line with the vast majority of the community's ability
to pay. This would lead to a lower total revenue and a drop in the
euphemistically named 'services', to a level that the community can afford and
would end up more in line with the services in neighboring areas.
All councils,
including Launceston City Council, need to release information on the source of rate income and the full calculations of rating system
differences, such that the community can understand the source of revenue.
Until this becomes a full and open debate, we are not likely to progress to a
more sustainable situation.
Yours faithfully,
Lionel J. Morrell
Lionel Morrell
President
Tasmanian
Ratepayers Association Inc..
