THE fight against Glenelg Shire Council’s proposed 20 per cent-plus rates rise for residential and farming properties has widened following a new campaign by opponents.
About 12 submitters to the draft 2022-23 budget had the opportunity to address Glenelg Shire councillors at a meeting in Portland on Tuesday night that was held behind closed doors.
At the same time a group of the submitters has called on the public to make their feelings about the proposed increase known to councillors.
The submitters couldn’t even hear each other give their five-minute presentations on Tuesday, but several spoke to the Observer following the meeting.
Among them was Portlander Hayley Rundell, who said the process was “intimidating”.
“We were like naughty kids called in one by one to a horseshoe configuration where we faced all the councillors,” she said.
“In a workplace you’ve got a right to take in a support person, but I wasn’t going to be intimidated and none of the farmers (most of the other submitters) were either.”
Ms Rundell, a mother-of-two, said it was possible her rates could rise by $400 next year, from about $1900 at present, added to other cost-of-living pressures at present such as higher interest rates and fuel, power and food prices.
In her submission she called the rate rises “gobsmackingly cruel and utterly heartless (for) pensioners who own their own homes, who already struggle to put the heater on and food on the table will be pushed to their already stretched limits, families, single home owners, farmers, renters”.
“Everyone will be pushed in an already hard time, to try and come up with the extra money that you OUR council, want to charge us.”
She told the Observer councillors needed to consider the present general circumstances.
“Councillors got their own pay rise, it’s quite a good little bump up, but no-one else is getting them,” she said.
“Real wages haven’t moved for years and years, they’ve literally gone down, it’s just so damn rude.
“Everything else has increased across the board.
“We’ve got two little boys and the cost of living is exorbitant, it’s really crazy.”
Ms Rundell has taken to social media to express her concerns and back the farmers’ campaign, but she said it was time for other residential ratepayers to make their feelings known.
“Quite a few people are not happy about it and they’re stamping their foot down and say thanks to me for being a voice,” she said.
“That’s all good but I think everyone needs to use their own voice.
“We want people to come to the meeting (the monthly council meeting on June 28, when councillors will vote on the budget) and also let councillors know what they think.”
Those behind that campaign have also called on residents to contact the council with a copy of their last rates notice and ask for an indicative idea of their rates for next year.
Should they be unhappy with that, they should contact councillors to express their displeasure.
Among those behind the campaign is Tahara Bridge farmer Howard Templeton, a former three-time Mayor of Southern Grampians Shire.
Mr Templeton spoke to his own submission on Tuesday night as well as that of former Southern Grampians executive Graeme Wallis, resident at Condah.
“It’s just a money grab and it’s money that they never had,” Mr Templeton said.
He was referring to the fact that in order to keep within the 1.75 per cent government-imposed rate cap the council it used as the base figure the $3.24 million rebate primary producers would have paid had there been no rebate in 2021-22, whereas they actually received it.
The council will actually receive about $4 million more if the budget is passed as is, with commercial ratepayers also likely to face an average 6.7 per cent increase.
Mr Templeton also took issue with the council line that the former 30 per cent rebate – which has been replaced with a 70 per cent differential rate – equated to a 55 per cent differential rate.
“They’ve come up with that by taking that money they never got and added it on to the general (residential) rate amount,” he said.
“It’s a nonsense figure, it’s not a true figure at all.”
Mr Templeton echoed Ms Rundell’s concerns, saying the issue was beyond just primary producers.
“(Statistics show) 29 per cent of Glenelg Shire residents are lone households,” Mr Templeton said.
“How are they going to cope? Think about pensioners, fixed income retirees, the guy on a basic wage with three kids and one income.
“That’s not in any way fair.
“I know people get cranky about rates, you get a barrage, some pretty nasty people at times and when I was on the council unfortunately my wife used to have to answer a lot of those calls.
“I say to councillors you’ve got to live in the community, you’ve got to walk sown the street and justify these decisions and your customer service officers have to answer the phone.
“They’re going to get an earful, so think about them too.”
Mr Wallis’s submission, read to the councillors by Mr Templeton on Tuesday, was blunt.
“The Essential Services Commission is charged with monitoring compliance with the rate cap,” he wrote.
“As you know this is done by applying the rate cap to the previous year’s gross revenue from rates, excluding any rebate.
“So it may be that Council is complying with the Essential Services Commission’s conditions, but to consider increasing rates by the percentages proposed in the draft budget is clearly contrary to the spirit of the Fair Go Rates system and might ultimately be proven to be illegal.
“The methodology used in calculating the permissible increase has not been applied in the best interests of the Glenelg Shire community.
“I fear that should Council proceed to increase rates as proposed in the draft budget there will be outrage throughout the Shire, particularly from the farm sector.
“I believe there is a very real possibility that Council could find itself facing a class action on the grounds that using the change from a rebate to differentials to circumvent the State Government’s rate cap is morally unconscionable.”
Wando Vale farmer Ann Munro, who believes her rates will go up between 57 and 69 percent, said the rate rises were “appalling”.
“We’ll actually be paying more on 98ha in Glenelg Shire than 310ha we own in Southern Grampians,” she said.
“It just doesn’t pass the pub test, it’s outrageous.”
Ms Munro said the public needed to make its voice known.
“If we could encourage townies to really check things out that would be great,” she said.
“I don’t think a lot of them realise it’s going to apply to them as well, but it does.
“We also need lots and lots of people to turn out to the council meeting on the 28th.”
That was echoed by Strathdownie farmer Andrew McEachern.
“We are not council bashers,” he said.
“This isn’t a case of tall poppy syndrome, we want what’s fair.”
He also took aim at the closure of Tuesday’s meeting to the public.
“Glenelg Shire citizens deserve honesty and transparency from their council and this has not been that.
“It needs to be called out. If you genuinely want to represent your citizens why do you restrict the means of communication so much.
“Frankly it’s not communication in any meaningful form whatsoever.
“That annoys me almost more than the blatant unfairness of the rate rises they are proposing.
“Being a councillor should be a noble undertaking but quite frankly to try to hide and circumvent and misrepresent so much of what they’re trying to do is extremely disappointing.”
Mr McEachern and Ms Munro both pointed to the introduction of the rebate (instead of a differential) in 2010-11 as the start of the problem – it increased from $1 million back then to about $3.5 million, a figure Mr McEachern referred to an “accounting tool, not real money”.
“The council brought it upon themselves back then,” Mr McEachern said.
“We’re not the ones who should have to fix it.
“I don’t think these councillors are aware of that and they need to be aware of what they are voting for.
“Everybody please ring the shire and get your indicative rates for the upcoming rating year and if you don’t like what you hear, ring your councillor.”
Lake Mundi farmer Kevin Stark has attended the past two ordinary council meetings as well as making a submission on Tuesday, and called the process “a farce, like what you would expect”.
“The councillors are supposed to represent the ratepayers but at the moment they’re representing the council to the ratepayers,” he said.
“They have got to realise what they are elected representatives for.
“I’m hoping they can see reason with all the cost-of-living pressures.
“All everyone’s talking about are interest rates, power prices, fuel prices and grocery prices and the council jumps up and says certain people in the shire can handle 20 up to 100 per cent rate increases.
“It’s not in the spirit of the (rates cap), all they have to do is give up on the $3.5 million grab and stick to 1.75 per cent like everyone else.”
Councillors will make a final decision on the budget at the monthly meeting on June 28, which is a public meeting open to anyone who wants to attend.
