Some do Care about ratepayers

Remarks on BBSC 2008-2009 Budget,  as revised and delivered at Council, 25-6-08

Mr Mayor,  I am going to throw a stone in the water; without any offence intended to anyone present or elsewhere undeserving.   I am sorry I cannot support this budget, because its failure is in the balance between Financial, and Social and Moral Responsibility.  I just cannot support increase in rates when a great number of people in the community are struggling with inflating grocery, fuel, and bank costs.

                Local government is supposed to exist for the benefit of the community; and if it causes harm to its people it fails in its primary purpose.   There is a lack of fundamental justice in the Rates system.  The fact that  rates are determined by the hypothetical “Market Value” of people’s property, which does not have anything to do with their ability to pay; makes authority  divorce their conscience from the realization of what the impact may be on many on low incomes.

                “They lie, the men who tell us, for reasons of their own

                That want is here a stranger, and that misery’s unknown.”

Henry Lawson was not writing of the Great depression, because he died in 1922.  There are a lot more people struggling now.  The effect on people, and on their opinion of us, using another two lines from Lawson as metaphor;

                “But now that we have made this land a garden full of promise,

                Old Greed must crook his dirty hand and come and take it from us”.

                Baw Baw Shire ratepayers carry a much heavier burden in proportion to those in metropolitan areas.  I have copy of rate notice of a friend in an outer metropolitan area, whose property is very close to the same value as mine, and he paid less than half the rates last year.  And we are probably not as great a burden to ratepayers as that imposed by larger country councils with lower population.

Cr Costas spoke of Rates increases (as though they were of little consequence):  This year the rates on my property will have doubled since 2002; but with the encumbrances I work with,  my earning capacity is unchanged.

Rates really need to be capped to a maximum proportion of people’s income; and there needs to be substantial restructure of local government funding.  This will not happen unless we advocate and work for it.

There are people who surf the economy, but many more who struggle, and many who drown in it.  I believe local government should have greater responsibility to the struggling and the drowning.

                The Budget is largely financially responsible.   Largely, but not totally.  I believe we need to reduce recurrent funding.

A year ago I queried the fact that I could not identify the cost of the vehicle fleet.   It was all broken up into individual programs.   (I had already figured that out).    It seems that a large proportion of vehicles are provided for full private use of staff,  who contribute to the cost through “salary sacrifice”.   I have an uncomfortable feeling that it may still be ratepayers who make the greatest sacrifice.

Well, we were given two reports.  The first related to policy choice of vehicles, and I said that it was not what I had asked about.   Another appeared later, also wide of the mark; and it was never listed for discussion. 

What I want to see is a comprehensive report which allows councillors to see full details of costs:   We also need a comparison of the number of vehicles that would be needed, and what the costs would be if vehicles were garaged and pooled, and there was no private use.  

If you look at DHS parking area beside Warragul Post Office at night or weekend, you see lots of red-plate vehicles.  Everyone provides their own transport to work.

Corporations can indulge employees with car use, and it is factored into the price of their product in the marketplace.   There is no justification for local government to do the same.  Ratepayers contribute the capital cost of the fleet, which is quite substantial.  The accounting cost of control of private use contributions probably comes from the ratepayers also.   And vehicles which commute from the greater metropolitan area are possibly changed over as much as twice a year, which is rather profligate. 

Latest RACV figures put the cost of running cars in the range of $200 to$350 per week for many of our fleet.   It is an ethical problem whether Council should provide such assistance in tax minimisation, not related to need.

I strongly believe that Council has a responsibility to phase out private use of council cars.  (Obviously you cannot interfere with current employment contracts).   It is very likely one of the best ways to reduce recurrent expenditure; but right now we do not have that information.

                 Mr Mayor, 793 years and 5 days ago a conference ended which established the principles of common law upon which our law is based, which are the principles by which people should expect to be treated.   One relevant principle is that no-one should be unreasonably taxed or taxed to their ruin.  I am afraid that may be  ignored  now.

                In conclusion Mr Mayor,  I believe we have an obligation to advocate and work for restructure of Local Government funding, to enable the Rates system to be reformed and made fair.

Cr Ivan Saxton

Baw Baw Council

RATEPAYERS VICTORIA, Inc. A0040924M - PO BOX 1057 Huntingdale, Victoria 3166