THE State Government’s rate cap policy has cost 22 jobs at Glenelg Shire Council, a union representing Local Government workers claims.
The figure was in a report commissioned by the Australian Service Union, which examined the rate cap introduced in 2016.
It found “setting rates with a blunt instrument such as a cap damages local workforces, with detrimental effects on essential community services”.
The report found that despite Victoria recording population growth of more than 20 per cent in the past decade, there were about 3000 fewer Local Government workers in 2019-20 than eight years prior, and rate capping had cost up to 7425 jobs in the public and private sectors, reducing the Gross Domestic Product by up to $890 million in 2021-22.
Local Government revenue from other sources, including user fees and fines, was now growing more than twice as fast as before the cap was introduced.
Australian Services Union Victoria Secretary, Lisa Darmanin said Victorians were seeing fewer services provided by Local Government, with more ‘user pays’ to cover the funding shortfalls and the casualisation of council workforces, creating employment insecurity.
“Local government is an important and outsized employer of choice in Regional Victoria, that could be providing even more high-quality middle-income jobs in Regional Victoria,” she said.
“Local communities know what they need, they don’t need interference from the State Government in Melbourne.
“Rate capping imposes a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach at the expense of democratic decision-making and local jobs and services.”
Report author and economist, Dan Nahum said there was no evidence that rate caps made local councils more efficient, rather they took money out of much-needed council services and robbed local communities of employment opportunities.
“Far from protecting ratepayers and residents, rate caps hurt them,” he said.
“Rate caps compromise service delivery, negatively impact employment and wages amongst residents employed in the Local Government sector, result in higher fees collected through other revenue tools and reduce Local Government expenditures flowing back into the private sector.”
