Complaints ring hollow
There seems little doubt that the timing of the state government ordered review by IPART of the NSW local government rating system could have been better (BDN, 21/10).
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Complaints by some councillors at the last meeting about the lack of opportunity for residents and ratepayers to be consulted on the review, and for members of the previous council to respond, ring more than a little hollow.
Particularly in light of the fact council’s general manager has confirmed that all councillors were afforded the opportunity to contribute to its submission to IPART, with the matter discussed with councillors over a few weeks prior to a submission being prepared and submitted to IPART by May 13. As to the lack of opportunity for public consultation, perhaps council could explain why it didn’t think to at least make residents and ratepayers aware of the review via a simple media release, thereby affording them an opportunity to make individual submissions directly to IPART?
And while it is true that there was only one council meeting where the newly-elected council could formally consider and respond to IPART’s Draft Final Report ahead of its October 14 deadline for final responses, the fact is that the draft was released on August 22, 2016, which meant that it was available for consideration by the newly-elected councillors for two weeks between when they formally assumed office on September 28 and the council meeting held on October 12.
It seems that both councils had more than adequate time to consider the issue and respond against the IPART review timeline, but regrettably failed to afford residents and ratepayers the same opportunity.
Fraser Buchanan, Merimbula
Rates by stealth
I have an issue that might be of interest to your readers and maybe your reporter team can gleam some more facts on this topic from the people involved.
This issue affects all country people of NSW that had its council forcibly amalgamated by Premier Mike Baird and then to his credibility.
On the 8/7/2016 I wrote to the Premier on the subject of the council amalgamations and the prospect of huge rate rises because of the forced amalgamation in my area, contrary to assurances of no rate rise for four years given by the Premier.
Apparently rate rises are still on the agenda. Why he has gone back on his word to the people of NSW on no rate rises for four years after amalgamations?
He had previously mentioned this through TV and radio but also in his May 12, 2016, media release it also contained that rates were to stay the same.
But my new Mid Coast Council (Taree, Gloucester, Great Lakes area) is already applying through IPART for a 20 per cent increase over four years. Plus each amalgamated council is waiting in the wings for this determination to succeed so that they can have some more.
The reason IPART is looking at this proposal is that the promise given to the people of NSW by the Premier only meant Sydney – in the country it doesn't apply. I would like to know why this is so?
In the press release and TV interviews no mention was made and it appears to be only recently concocted. Mr Baird has become infamous for his back flips lately and this appears to be yet another to all of the people of NSW.
Why this great divide between city and bush? Be truthful to country NSW with an answer please. I'm against the proposed rate rise due to the area having a high demographics of pensioner and unemployed and mostly because of his word to us.
Geoffrey Pettett, Wingham, NSW
- Send your letters to ben.smyth@fairfaxmedia.com.au. All letters must contain a name and home town for publication and a contact number for verification.