SPORTS REPORT: The Lonnie Rubbish Meet Last Monday at Town Hall

Public meetings are sometimes a lot like a game of medieval and gladiatorial street football – even if its played out in slow motion.

When you unpack the tactics on display its usually pretty clear what is going on and who has what at stake. The thing is the rules … well, they’re a little bit obscure. They are kind of there but by and large they are made up on the fly.

In general the rules are close to being open slather. Nonetheless there are some rules that are adhered to even if only to avoid the bodies being carried off the field of play in public view. That’s not a good look while the game is actually in train.

Assassinations etc. are best dealt with beforehand. Likewise, executions are advantageously left until after some bureaucratic transgression or other – and best carried out well away from the glaring lights of public scrutiny.

All that said, this is the kind of situation a 100 or so Launceston ratepayers and residents walked into at Launceston’s Town Hall at 6 pm last Monday. The home team of suits was laying in wait for them in the Reception Room. After some reasonably polite formalities the whistle was blown and it was GAME ON!

So to this match last Monday at Town Hall. Well it had all the promise of being a well planned fizzer. Except, somehow the word had got out despite the best efforts of some of the suits to keep the crowd small and compliant. But there is always an enthusiast who’ll frustrate the promoter’s intentions, isn’t there?

It is surprising that the match pulled a crowd of 100 plus but there you go. However, there were some conspicuous absentees on Town Hall suits’ squad – had they been there the score may have been a little different or the game may have been played a little differently.

Early on it was clear that this was going to be a rather uneven match. Actually, both sides underestimated the scene. The bureaucrats kicked an early goal but after that they very quickly lost control of the game on the night. Indeed, the eventual score was Suits one and Citizens four – with two own goals for the Citizens in that. This is only a rough estimate because the home side failed to supply an official score keeper but it is indicative of the match. The suits were outclassed!

A win is a win, is a win. Now the task is about getting down to business. Having identified at least some of the problems that need to be dealt with the needs that now need to be met are to do with finding ways:
• To inform ratepayers and residents what their options are;
• To disseminate the information needed to change outcomes;
• To win equity for ratepayers and residents;
• To work for improved democratic processes and participation in local government decision making;
• To work for accountability and good governance in local government; and
• To promote the return of local government to local control.

The job is ahead and for the moment all that can be said is “watch this space”.

Can pigs fly? Well, the aim is to find a way to get a pig of an idea of the ground and air born.

For an interesting article on our Victorian cousins click here

ARE YOUR RATES IN THE 5.5% INCREASE RANGE?

This Launceston ratepayer is suffering it seems and it also seems that Launceston City Council's rate increase is sometimes far from an average of 5.5%. How many more ratepayers like this are out there?

16%, well that's way outside the promised average and what this ratepayer hasn't mentioned is that there are water rates yet to be paid.

The promise was of course that rates would fall with the new water management arrangements. Well that promise hasn't been delivered on – and neither does it seem that correspondence is going to be entered into in regard to this issue.

Then there is the argument that rates are a kind of "Wealth Tax" and one that's within the powers of Local Govt. If it is , Aldermen/Councillors have not been out there on the hustings promoting that idea when they were looking for votes. No prizes for guessing why!

All the evidence seems to be pointing towards it being Council officers determining the rates in virtual isolation from ratepayers' representatives. Only one Launceston Alderman voted against the recent rate rise. There seems to be a message there for ratepayers and residents.

Meanwhile a pensioner's rates increase by 16%, against the promise of a decrease. It seems that there is nobody at Town Hall – Aldermen or officers – who is paying any real attention to the issue – and using all manner of excuse for not doing so. And, it seems that very little attention is being paid to cost cutting or the minimisation of waste.

Petar Hill

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: A promise about rates

In the Jun-Sep 09 issue of the Launceston News published by the LCC, on the front page is the following statement...

"Water and Sewer: As of 1 July 2009, three local government owned corporations took over the delivery and maintenance of water and sewer services in Tasmania. In the north, Ben Lomond Water will provide these services. In the past, the fee for water and sewer services has been included in your rates bill. You will now receive a separate notice from Ben Lomond Water (BUW) for these services. As a result of this, your Council rates will be substantially less than last year...."

Now it is just possible that someone will try and explain this away but when you put things on the record at ratepayers' expense it might be a good idea to try and keep the promises that are made.

As they used to say on the radio ... "keep those cards and letters coming in folks!"

Are you paying your rates on the right valuation?

This letter in today’s Examiner has been drawn to the attention of Launceston City Council's General Manager along with the Mayor and Aldermen. The writer, Mr Frank Deane, is a respected expert in valuation procedures in Tasmania. He worked for the state valuation office until he retired.

If Mr Deane is correct in his assessment of the situation in respect to valuations used to strike rates in Tasmania, then it is an imperative that every Council using the AAV system – Assessed Annual Value system – to strike a rate should thoroughly investigate the methods they are using to strike this year’s rates.

However, ratepayers need to test the veracity of the valuation upon which their rate has been struck for themselves. Mr Deane offers very good advice it would seem. Ratepayers would be well advised to act upon his advice – even those who do not get to read The Examiner.

Council officers may not welcome the fact that this advice has been offered but ratepayers need to satisfy themselves that they are at least paying their rates on the appropriate valuation for their property.

Local Government: What's legal and what's illegal

Wat's legal and illegal in Local Government is often the subject of contentious debate. If you are a ratepayer you are ever likely to told what your obligations are but rarely are your rights explained to you it seems. Likewise, it seems that Aldermen & Councillors are often unclear about what the Local Government Act has to say about an issue and more than a few report that they receive confusing advice from Council officers.

Is a 21st C context this should no longer be the case because the Local Government Act. is very accessible and really quite strait forward. Certainly there are complexities in the Act but Council officers should be able to clarify (in Council or privately) an issue for an Alderman/Councillor where these things impinge upon a Council decision. If this is not the case then ratepayers have something to worry about and especially if it turns out that Aldermen/Councillors wind up working with flawed or inadequate advice – it seems that in some cases this may be happening.

It is also important that ratepayers be aware of the laws governing Local Government. Unless they are there is no real way they can lobby their representatives on Council – or even negotiate effectively with Council officer when they need to.

There are some links below to parts of the Act that are all too often 'Hot Issues'. However, there seems to be a need for 'Ratepayer Groups' to start to be somewhat more proactive than they have been in educating ratepayers about their rights and obligations along with what they should be able to expect from their elected representatives and Council officers.

• LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 20 20. Functions and powers
• LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 28 28. Functions of councillors – 28(2) (iii) & (28) (3) (a) are of particular interest
• LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 22 22. Delegation by council – 21 (1) (a) & 21 (4) (a) are of particular interest
• LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 62 62. Functions and powers of general manager
  

The Vexed Question of Rates in Tasmania

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 :

• "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."

Well, Launceston's ratepayers are not happy, and have not been since the massive increases were implemented. There are over 8,000 (out of 27,000) ratepayers affected by unfairly high rates . Many ratepayer’s found their rates reduced, static or not rising in accordance with CPI during this period. However, Launcestonians pay higher rates than residential ratepayers in many interstate suburbs whose property values are several times more valuable than they are in Launceston.

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

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE Comments and opinions are welcomed.
Please use the comment section below.