My name is Craig Ogilvie I am here representing the Stradbroke Island
Rates Action Group and with the support and interest of the Stradbroke
Island Community Association. We are aware that you are currently
discussing options for the Rating system in the Redlands Shire.
We are concerned because we have been hearing reports that some
councilors are resistant to change and we are also concerned that
you are basing youre discussions on an internal review that
we have problems with. For
those reasons I am here to speak to you all and impress on you
the urgency of change.
The
current rating system, if left as is, will force some islanders
out of their homes. It is a problem, I might add, not specific
to the Island but also causing problems in areas like Oyster point, Cleveland Point,
Wellington Point etc. The new land valuations to be released in February will push people
over the edge when put on top of the 40% average increase suffered
in the last valuations. Most
of these people are normal working people who cant afford
the exorbitant rates that this council is currently charging.
It will have the serious effect of destroying the Stradbroke Island community, which is already under threat, a community that is thankfully
made up of people from all walks of life. Incidentally, the view
that these people can simply sell up and go somewhere else, which
is a view I have heard bandied around by some councilors, is the
most heartless abrogation of your duties as custodians of the
communities that make up this shire that I could possibly imagine.
Some of the people Im talking about have been in
their homes twenty years
There seems to be a line of thinking amongst some councilors that rates
based strictly on valuations reflect ability to pay. We totally
dispute the validity of that thinking. While we concede that there
are many good arguments for government taxes and charges reflecting
peoples ability to pay, we dont
believe that rates is one of those taxes. The simple reason is that, unlike other taxes,
property valuations do not and can not reflect accurately, not
even inaccurately, peoples ability to
pay. I could give you many real life case studies
where low to middle income families find themselves, for reasons
of lifestyle, community and history (Not Investment), in areas
now rated as highly desirable but nevertheless are still low to
middle income families. Yet they are expected to pay high rates
because this council has mistakenly operated on the basis that
because you own expensive property you can pay more. When they moved into these areas, never in their
wildest dreams would they have expected to have to pay the rates
now being charged. These people need a system that protects them
from wildly escalating charges. On the other hand we know that
there are many examples of high income individuals and families
who own investment properties in low valuation areas but dont
pay high rates- there is no equity in a system simply based on
land valuation.
Now, if a rate based on value was somehow a reflection of services received
I could understand and accept the system. But once again this is not the case. We all know that rates do not reflect bang for
buck. Low rated areas get
the same (more or less) as high rated areas in this shire.
In Stradbroke Island's case, we could
mount a convincing argument that some of the residents of highly
rated areas receive far less than the mainland low rated areas. Furthermore, islanders are less likely to use
council services because of the problems of distance.
Turning to the briefing prepared by council officers
to assist Councilors with their decision making. In our opinion important questions have not
been fully addressed. And the report is, in places, leading and
incomplete.
With out going into much detail, in Section 11, which seeks to compare
The Redland Shire Council with other councils, two extremely important
questions go unanswered. Firstly, how do the rates being paid
on higher valued properties compare against other council areas?
Secondly, what other systems are other council areas using?
Not what their rate in the dollar is, but what are their
systems. It is only with the answers to those two important questions
that you can have a properly informed decision making process.
George Harris from The Raby Bay Ratepayers Association has done
a lot of work in this area and he tells me that rates on a $200000
property are 80% more than a similarly rated property on the Gold
Coast. That is inequitable, it is wrong, it means that other people
are getting a free ride at the expense of people many of whom
cant pay.
The discussion in section 9, which seeks to outline the advantages and
disadvantages of the respective options, is quite leading. In particular the discussion at 9.3 regarding
the rate capping option is deficient in that it does not discuss
the social advantages of such a system.
The kinds of advantages that have lead many councils,
including the Brisbane City Council to adopt it. It does not point
out either that while there is a redistribution of burden that
his is minor, in fact 80% of the properties effected
will pay less than $20 more and a further 15% will pay less than
$50. A small price indeed
to give certainty and comfort to those potentially forced out
of their homes by unanticipatable galloping valuation increases.
We welcome any opportunity to discuss further with councilors in detail
our concerns with elements of the report.
For many councilors the disincentive to do nothing is very strong. There
is a perception that to vote for change will be unpopular with
the electorate. We think
this is both shortsighted and hardhearted. Shortsighted,
because we believe that the people of the Redlands
will embrace change if the consequences of doing nothing are explained. Hardhearted because it puts political expediency and relatively minor
consequences for peoples hip pockets above the dramatic consequences
of people being forced out of their homes. Believe me these
consequences are real. Don
and Frank have courageously faced these people at our recent meetings
and as a consequence understand the real need for reform,
I would urge all of you to face these people as part of the process
of coming to a decision.
In conclusion, We urge you to require more information
from your council officers.
And, we urge you to be statesmanlike and ignore the largely imagined possibility
of an electoral backlash and take your responsibilities as compassionate
human beings seriously when framing the new system.