Open letter to South Gippsland Shire Council (SGSC)

The SGSC $2million Covid-19 Community Support Package v A Rate Reduction alternative.

Fact:  There is an overarching Local Government Act requirement for Council to keep rates as low as possible.

The SGSC decided, in its wisdom, to enter into Welfare Support instead of leaving it to the other levels of Government to manage.  This is not the intended role of local government.  In fact, following the dismissal of the elected Council in June 2019, the then Local Government Minister, gave advice that Council should stick to their remit of dealing with Rates, Roads and Rubbish (Ref. Hansard).  So why, when we are supposed to being educated in ‘good governance’, have we veered off course?  It’s not so long ago that this was considered sufficient grounds to dismiss SGSC.

Fact:  When Council first made the announcement, South Gippsland Action Group (SGAG) quickly pointed out to the Administrators that Council staff were unlikely to have the experience and/or skill sets to be able to properly manage their proposed scheme.  Who amongst them is a licensed Financial Adviser qualified to guide ratepayers in difficulty?  So up pops the solution – Council will appoint a nameless, faceless, committee to pick the ‘winners’ of the handouts.  What accountability is being put in place?  Are we going to be told who gets what amount and why?  There must be privacy issues if the names of the beneficiaries are disclosed.  This scheme is akin to picking my pocket – or yours – and putting the money removed – at least some of it – into the pocket of some other ratepayer.  The rest of the money just disappears!  We called this out as being a “slush fund” right from the get-go and that’s what it is, despite denials from the administration.

We already have a recently revised Hardship Policy to assist ANY ratepayer who might be struggling to pay their rates.  In regard to the Hardship Policy, Julie Eisenbise said: “The ultimate aim of the policy was to help people who struggle with paying rates” (Ref. The Star, pl6,3 March 2020).  We were assured there was no way the Shire could afford to do better for hardship cases.  Yet now, within a few short months, we are told an additional $2million magically appears and will be thrown at the problem.  SGAG fully understands the Hardship Policy is far from ideal having fought hard and long for a better deal – right up to the last day – but that’s another story.

Businesses have no right to be putting their hand in our pocket for a handout – aided and abetted by Council.  Did this brainwave come out of a request from a Business Association?  Unlikely, surely!  So where did it come from?  A flaw in the Council’s chosen method of offering assistance, is that even those who do benefit from their scheme have to help pay for it through an increase in their own rates.  That increase will NEVER be reversed and will be a drain on all of us for ever after.

It might have been a better choice to cut 5% off the rate bill for EVERY RATEPAYER (instead of jacking it up by 2%).  Nothing ‘whiffy’ about that!  It would have been fairer (no picking ‘winners’) and we all would have been happier.  By taking that option WE would have saved tens of thousands of $’s, because there would have been no need to ‘manage’ (should that read ‘massage’) the cumbersome, inequitable, process we are trying to put in place now.

Leaving aside the propensity of those with the power to do so, to develop a liking for ‘slush funds’, it seems to be anathema for Local Government to even contemplate a reduction in rates, even when it makes good sense to do so.  Are they so averse to common sense – so fearful of setting a precedent?  The Government has set in place an edict about the maximum rate increase allowed – but that should not be interpreted as an automatic right to an increase.  I have listened to the reasoning for not adhering to the previous Elected Council’s policy on rate reduction – but don’t believe a word of it.  Former Councilor, Aaron Brown, trotted it out as a reason for his resignation.  Administrator Brown used it last July in the infamous “I think we can get away with that” speech.  It made no sense then and it still doesn’t.

Trim the fat off the administration and get on with the Growth for Reduced Rates plan/strategy – even Administrators Eisenbise and Brown have both independently supported the latter idea, but then never mentioned it again.  Why not? – the whole idea is all about suppressing rate increases.  Why is it that OUR administration doesn’t think that is a good idea?

On the subject of bad ideas, who in the real world borrows money without a clear understanding of what they are going to do with it.  Our Council is doing that – unless there is a hidden agenda – the only argument put forward in favour of their planned borrowings being that interest rates are currently low.  The flip side of that argument is the you earn NOTHING for money sitting in the bank.  The loan still has to be paid back, sooner or later – we borrow now, so our grandkids can pay it back.  Marvelous!

Julie Eisenbise is on record as saying her first objective was to restore the community faith in the Council, so try suppressing rates and see what happens.

Dumb stuff is dumb stuff – don’t whine if you get called out for doing it.

Yours sincerely

Lindsay Love

Secretary

South Gippsland Action Group (SGAG)