by Dean Hurlston

Your local council typically employs many hundreds of staff 

These staff work across many areas including pools, parks, libraries, elderly in home support, youth services, maternal health, rubbish collection, customer service, roads, planning and so much more. 

The local government sector is underpinned by a highly “unionised” workforce typically represented by the Australian Services Union (ASU). 

Councils are now struggling to manage these staff costs and provide efficient and cost effective services.  According to Simon Hammersley  from the ASU, there are 30 of Victorias 79 Councils with outstanding EBAs. Some staff haven’t had pay rises in 2 years.  

So where to?

Councils have started outsourcing pools and aquatic services already where their own staff earn about $30 per hour and in the contractor space the non unionised award rates are half this! 

Elderly in home support services and meals on wheels are now on the chopping block. Federal funding used to be given to councils in advance, based on population not usage. This enables councils to perform services for a very low subsidised rate (typically $6-10 per hr)

Councils have been banking millions in grants in this area for years due to low usage numbers. 

Now that the federal govt has moved to a pay in arrears model (based on usage) councils are fast dumping the service and referring to an outsourced external provider. This will dramatically push up the support costs for those who need in home help to remain in their home. Some costs will go from $10hr to $55+ per hour. 

We already have a shortage of nursing homes. This will further marginalise low income senior members of our community that have been able to remain in their homes with this low cost support. It will place pressure on nursing home availability and place pressure on families with elderly members living alone. 

What’s next? Maternal Health? Libraries? 

Council staff cross skilling is needed in the short term. 

Some councils like Hobsons Bay have recognised this and recently agreed to cross train their librarians in general customer service. 

This helps spread the wage cost and is an efficient practice. Sadly librarians are out in force protesting despite their reasonably high salaries. They are asking the ASU to help them prevent any other duties be added. It must be exhausting for librarians to answer general enquiries from residents in their libraries. 

Why are the council staff so opposed to anything but the status quo?

There are many anecdotal stories across the sector of council staff working less hours a day than most of us or knocking off early on a regular basis This is especially in non office based roles. Combine that with relatively high pay rates and no wonder council can be a dream job for some. 

When local government is paying staff 2-3

Times the award rates of private enterprise is it actually time to deregulate local

Councils and turn them into nothing but outsourced contract providers for the best service and cheapest cost? 

Have councils literally made themselves ultimately redundant because their costs models are no longer fit for purpose and competitive? 

Is it time we forced council executives to find cheaper, market based solutions to their overpaid in-house staff? 

I guess ratepayers and residents paying rates and fees would certainly hope so!

by Dean Hurlston

There is little doubt that January 26th is a difficult day for indigenous persons around our Country, but is the obsession of local councils to abandon traditional Australia Day celebrations warranted?

This week saw Melbourne Lord Mayor Sally Capp and her fellow Councillors raise this as one of the most important issues for the City of Melbourne. A city, that has office occupancy hovering around 25% and businesses begging for help. A city inundated with homeless and drug dealing almost on every corner, a city swamped with closed shops and graffiti, litter bins overflowing, and a sad sense that it will never be the same. There are over 18,000 small businesses in the City of Melbourne – why isn’t the Lord Mayor and her elected team firmly focused on them?

The mind boggles. 

Victoria has 79 local Councils, each raking in their share of the industry's $12 Billion in revenue annually. Amidst the myriad of services – think pools, libraries, rubbish, parks, sporting facilities, and the like, councils claim to provide 25% of all services to their local communities and complain that rate capping is hurting their ability to offer “more services to expanding populations”.

So, before we tackle the Australia Day issue, let's get some things clear. Councils may claim they provide 25% of services with only 4% of the national taxes flowing to them but what Councils fail to acknowledge is that both State and Federal Governments provide Health, Transport, Roads, Infrastructure, Education, NDIS, National Security, Military, and Welfare just to name the main spending categories at a tune of many, many hundreds of Billions per annum. Councils simply provide localised and very small amounts of neighbourhood services. Very small indeed. 

So, whilst complaining about their lack of revenue it strikes me as odd that they continue to insert themselves into Nuclear Disarmament, Rainbow accreditations, Climate Change, Bike Lanes in the middle of roads, Electric Vehicles, and the National Day of Celebrating all things Australia, when these are clearly driven by national or state policymakers.

Why is this such an important issue to your local council?

Well just like adding pronouns to their email signatures in a tokenistic attempt to appear as “big players” in being LGBTQI+ inclusive Government, they are now hellbent on forcing local communities to endure an ideological change that really belongs as a state or national conversation. A ideological agenda that is fuelled by tokenistic confected white guilt. 

Australia recently elected a new federal government, this is in their wheelhouse not councils!

Its far more appropriate that Councils get back to their core remit of Roads, Pools, Parks, Libraries, etc and great customer service which has been declining rapidly. With such low amounts of our taxes shouldn’t they be trying to reign in costs and be efficient? 

Could it be that in trying to be bigger fish than residents and ratepayers ever asked them to be, Councils are trying to be all things to everyone? 

Are they just trying to play BIG GOVERNMENT and make themselves more important than they are? Is it why councils are demanding that they get representation at the federal national cabinet level?

I sure think so, and so do the thousands of talkback radio and newspaper readers commenting online. A quick review of these calls and comments highlights one thing – the Councillors and Executives of local councils are fast losing the trust of people in the streets and neighbourhoods. The majority that pays their $12 Billion in revenues each year are starting to be sick and tired of this ideological, cultish obsession.

Put simply, ordinary Victorians have had enough of being lectured to and their Council preaching the new gospel of virtue to them. Instead, Victorians want a Local Government System free of corruption and influence, that charges FAIR rates for services and lets the community be heard first and foremost. A system designed to let the people and their needs drive it, instead of the other way around.

They are tired of Councillors failing to represent the actual communities’ interests but pursuing their own ideological world views. All of this at the expense of overdevelopment of our suburbs whilst our rights are usurped, challenged, and thrown in the bin. Don’t even start us on the mess that is the complaints systems within Councils. You’ll know if you have recently tried to complain to your council that it is often a futile, frustrating, and overwhelming exercise.

Gone are the days when ordinary people mattered, nowadays our Council is only interested if you are a minority that can share your race, stated sex, sexuality, or climate agenda as a badge of honour, and if you happen to use pronouns on your email – you more than likely will jump ahead of the queue. These identifiers look fantastic on their their forms and surveys, because they show the council to be hip and fully inclusive indeed.

Councils really have gone off the rails, but like all things, eventually, the people will put a stop to this. Councils always underestimate the power of the people. 

So back to Australia Day, I’ve asked several Council CEO’s how this is helping the real issues of indigenous poverty, abuse, and health outcomes………. needless to say, I am still waiting for any response.

Yet Councils unashamedly claim this is one of the most pressing local issues they need to address without delay.

So why did Sally Capp blast our airwaves and TV screens this week but not mention any of the 18,000 businesses she is meant to be supporting? 

Maybe there is no media mileage in them, but there sure is in bagging Australia Day and doing it with your personal Pronouns to boot. 

Don’t get me wrong , we need to fix indigenous issues properly. But this will not be done by our councils cancelling Australia Day. It will be done by individuals who spend time in indigenous communities tackling the high rates of abuse, substance and alcohol issues whilst educating and training people to help them lift their communities out of poverty. 

If only councils understood that. Silly councils.

by verityinyarraville

Last week (March 10 2022) homeowners across Victoria vented furiously in media forums against a generous 14% pay rise dished out to Councillors across Victoria by the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal (VIRT).

As the dust was settling, some media and Councillors queried my calculations of 14% payrises for Councillors – saying the rise was really only 4%.  (This is still nearly double the average Victorian wage rise but apparently nowhere near as outrage-inducing.)

So here is the explanation: the difference is 10% superannuation.

Because Councillors are not employees they are legally not entitled to superannuation.

In fact, VIRT's own Consultation paper for this Determination clearly stated that because Councillors are not employees, they are not entitled to superannuation:

The SG Act excludes Mayors and Councillors across Australia from the definition of ‘employee’. This means that Councils would not ordinarily be required to pay the SG contribution to Council members. Section 12(9A) of the SG Act states that: a person who holds office as a member of a local Government council is not an employee of the council.

However, the Australian Taxation Office does allow Council members to re-direct their allowances to superannuation on a pre-tax basis if they wish to do so. In addition, each Council has the option to resolve to become an Eligible Local Governing Body (ELGB) under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth).  Where a Council has made such a resolution, Council members are considered to be employees for a variety of taxation purposes and for the purposes of the SG Act.

Since 2008, an amount equivalent to the SG contribution is paid to Council members in those Councils that have not resolved to become ELGBs. This followed a recommendation of the 2008 Allowances Review which noted that: For those who forgo income and/or employment to  participate in local government the loss of superannuation has been identified as a significant issue. This can become a barrier to participation for both existing and potential Councillors.

As a result of the factors above, the Tribunal understands that all Council members receive either an SG contribution or an amount equivalent to the SG contribution in addition to their allowance.

Following the rationale above, Councillors were not legally entitled to superannuation, but they wanted it, so Councils found a way to pay it and over the years it has become ‘custom and practice’ and has now been entrenched by VIRT, by way of the Local Government Act changes, voted for by all but a few astute MPs. (Every ALP and Liberal Party MP supported the Local Government Act which handed Councillor pay to VIRT, and voila now superannuation for Councillors is now legalised.)

Councillors will say that they’ve been paid the superannuation since 2008 so it’s no big deal that it’s now officially legal.

The big deal is that it’s been secret. 

And since the Know Your Council website and VIRT’s own published base pay figures exclude the 10% superannuation, I retain the right to be outraged that Councillors are now being given a 14% per cent pay rise, courtesy of State MPs and VIRT.

Any Councillor that wants to stand up publicly and announce they’ve been accepting wangled superannuation payments on top of these ‘official’ base pay rates is welcome to speak up.

Verity Webb - RPV Committee member

by verityinyarraville

Councillors across Victoria have been awarded backdated payrises roughly seven times more than their local ratepayers in the inaugural decision by the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal.

State MPs handed Councillor pay over to the Tribunal when the passed the new Local Government Act 2020. 

On the same day the Legislative Council refused to publicise rate waivers for households with stressful rate bills, the Tribunal handed down 14% pay rises for Councillors across Victoria.

And that’s the lowest of the rises. 

Mayors will get payrises of 18% and new Deputy Mayors will enjoy increases of up to 89% more than than their previous pay as mere Councillors. 

And remember, for most Councillors this is their second job. (At Maribyrnong, my local Council, two Councillors are actually employed at another Council, so they're each collecting two ratepayer-funded incomes.)

In its reasons, the Tribunal noted that community groups were strongly opposed to any increases but sided with Councillors: 

“Most Council members who responded to the Tribunal’s questionnaire considered that the existing allowance values were too low. On the other hand, submissions from community groups representing the interests of ratepayers and from members of the public commented strongly that the values of the allowance should not be increased. 

The Tribunal considers that the significant contribution of Council members to local government is not being adequately recognised in the current value of the amount of the allowance payable to them. In particular, the Tribunal decided that an increase in the value of the allowance is justified given: 

• increases in the scope and complexity of Council members’ roles since the last comprehensive allowances review in 2007-08 
• high levels of community expectations placed on Council members to represent, and respond to, the interests of members of their municipal community
• evidence presented by stakeholders that the role of a Council member is more akin to a ‘job’ than purely voluntary in nature, especially for the role of Mayor”

Ratepayers Victoria finds it ironic that the Tribunal should place weight on ‘community expectations’ of Council members to represent them and respond to their interests, and STILL gave Councillors a pay rise.

Given the Local Government Act expressly forbids Councillors from any operational roles and  prevents them from directing staff or the CEO there are no practical requirements of Councillors in relation to the actual services Councils provide to residents.

And increasing complaints about skyrocketing rates is evidence that Councillors cannot or will not, contain rate increases by either improving Council efficiency or cutting Council costs.

Many ratepayers may think Councillors, MPs and the Tribunal are out of touch.  I think they are very closely in touch – with themselves. There’s a very rude word for that. 

Verity Webb – RPV committee member. 

Image credit - Caravaggio's oil panting of Narcissus: Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica in Rome. 

by verityinyarraville

Local Government Minister Shaun Leane has turned to the Australian Services Union (ASU) and the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) for advice as he plans legislation to redress poor attitudes and practices described in the Ombudsman’s report into how Councils treat ratepayers with unaffordable rate bills.

The ASU represents council staff and the MAV represents Councillors.

The Minister revealed plans for Legislation dealing with ratepayer hardship only after Ratepayers Victoria (RPV) wrote to all upper house MPs asking for legislation amendments to publicise waivers, since most ratepayers have no idea that rates can be waived, or reduced if it's difficult for home-owners to pay them.  The Liberal Party put forward its own amendment in response to the RPV request.

Minister Leane told Parliament yesterday (March 10, 2022) that laws to make Councils publicise hardship waivers on their websites, and alongside rate notices was “more than unnecessary” because he’s planning legislation to deal with hardship.

Minister Leane also told the house that “….some councils, to their credit, have fantastic policies on this in that they actually have people at the council talking to ratepayers in difficulty directly…..

“There are some councils that do some great work where they have employees talk to people in hardship and work through it. They have kind of gone away from the red notices and the different-coloured notices and are working with ratepayers and finding a way to help them." 

At no time did the Minister explain that most Council hardship policies (approved by Councillors) state that Councils will not pay waivers. He did not mention that Council staff do not provide forms for waivers, so no-one can apply for them. He did not mention the Ombudsman’s criticism of the standard Council practice of deferring rates and charging interest because it adds to financial hardship for ratepayers, instead of alleviating it.

None the less, the Minister’s arguments held sway with enough minor party MPs to defeat the amendment and keep waivers hidden.

Maxwell and Grimley from the Hinch Justice Party and Barton from Transport Matters voted with the Government, (including the two ex-ALP Independents).

The amendment was defeated 18 votes to 16.

And now we wait to see whether the ASU and MAV can change their policies and practices towards the residents they've been mis-treating for years.

Image Credit: picture of dracula in charge of the blood bank from flyclipart.

by verityinyarraville

Local Government Minister Shaun Leane has refused to support Legislation to ensure  Councils tell ratepayers they can apply for rate cuts if they’re suffering financial hardship.

During debate on an omnibus Bill which made alterations to several different pieces of legislation, the Liberal Party proposed amendments, suggested by Ratepayers Victoria, that Councils should have to include information about waivers on their rate notices and Council websites.

The amendments followed lobbying by Ratepayers Victoria in February, when we wrote to all 42 members of the Upper House (including Local Government Minister Shaun Leane)  seeking changes to section 171(A) of the Local Government Act, which provides waivers for ratepayers suffering financial hardship.

Ratepayers Victoria asked for provisions to make sure Councils tell ratepayers they can apply for waivers, because Council forms only allow for deferrals - not waivers or cuts. 

 In addition, Councils often charge interest on deferred rates, which actually increases financial hardship on ratepayers, rather than reducing it.

Following a brief meeting between Shadow Treasurer, David Davis and Acting RPV President Kelvin Granger , the Liberals introduced the following amendments on March 10th: 

(1) For the period of 4 years from the commencement of this section, a Council must include details of the waiver for financial hardship provisions in section 171A of the Local Government Act 1989— 

(a) in a separate sheet enclosed with any rate notice sent during that period; and 

(b) on a website maintained by the Council and on all social media platforms used by the Council. 

(2) A Council must include in its annual report— 

(a) the number of requests for waivers received under section 171A of the Local Government Act 1989 during the period referred to in subsection (1); and  

(b) the number of waivers granted in whole or in part during that period.".'.

To Ratepayers Victoria, the amendments seemed seemed simple and practical. 

Local Government Minister Shaun Leane on the other hand, told Parliament the amendment was entirely unnecessary because the Government was going to introduce a Bill on hardship.

The amendment to publicise waivers was defeated 18 votes to 16.

Image shows the victoria parliament logo with angry emoji.

by verityinyarraville

While local Councils around Victoria are increasing rubbish collection fees and cutting regular garbage collection to households, the state government is sitting on a stockpile of cash, collected through the Municipal and Industrial Waste Levy (MIWL.)

The most recent report available from the Department of Environment Water Land and Planning  (DWELP) for 2020-21 shows a stockpile of $320m  waiting to be dished out from the Sustainability Fund.

But the MIWL collects millions more than the cash in the Sustainability Fund. In 2020-21 the MIWL collected about $260m : $202m was handed over to six state government departments – and only $44m went into the Sustainability Fund.

And it appears from the DWELP report that the six state government departments who get allocations from the Levy, can also double dip by applying for grants from Sustainability Fund. 

The report shows that in 20-21 66% of the $66m allocated went to local councils and state government departments.

In 2018 the Victorian Auditor General found the operation of the Fund was less than ideal; it was difficult to tell where the money was going; there was conflict of interest in the Trustees appointed to run the fund, and it was doubtful that all of the money was being spent as it was intended, when the Levy was first introduced.

Neither the DWELP report, nor the website with information about the Fund actually states simply that ratepayers are funding the bulk of this money – but we are, through our general rates bills.

Meanwhile, ratepayers just want reliable, regular rubbish services.

Instead, we get charged rates, then some of us get charged extra for rubbish collection, then some of our rates goes to the State Government as part of the Landfill Levy, then some of it goes to Six state government departments (who already have budgets funded from the GST and some of their own charges), then the rest goes into the Sustainability Fund, and our Councils can apply for grants, to get some of our money back, to spend on items not associated with what it was collected for in the first place.

Between our Councils and our state government departments the biggest waste crisis for ratepayers is our taxes. We’re running out of money because our governments are wasting it.

Saturday November 26th is state election day in Victoria. 

DELWP-Sustainability-Fund-2020-2021-EDITED -Report.pdf

VAGO-2018-Managing the Landfill Levy - Conclusions Extract.pdf

by verityinyarraville

Local Government Victoria’s discussion paper on Council Culture prepared by PWC is an ironic symbol of everything wrong with Local Government in Victoria.

The Discussion Paper proudly lists 12 groups who have provided invaluable input to the Paper because of their important roles in local government in Victoria. And not one of those contributors is a ratepayer group. 

And there it is.

Ratepayers pay for everything. We’re on the receiving end of all the services. But as far as Local Government Minister Shaun Leane and his advisors and his Ministry are concerned, we are irrelevant. We can contribute nothing of value to improving local government at a state or council level. 

All they want from us is money and lots of it. 

Every one of the contributing organisations are paid for by taxes or rates and some, like the MAV, get funded by both rates and taxes.

Here’s the list.

• Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) 
• Victorian Electoral Commission
• Local Government Inspectorate 
• Local Government Professionals 
• Australian Services Union (ASU) 
• Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) 
• Gender Equality Advisory Committee (GEAC)
• Councillor Conduct Panel 
• Chairs of the Panels of Administrators 
• CEOs of local councils 
•  Mayors 
• Local Government Mayoral Advisory Panel 

Note the inclusion of the staff union and the union that covers Council Managers as well as the Mayors – all the groups that are responsible for the ‘culture’ in Councils. 

But residents and ratepayers’ experience on the receiving end of Council services (or disservice) or being sneered at by Councillors as they pretend to answer questions during Council meetings apparently don’t provide valuable insights to PWC as it frames the review.

And of course none of us, in our local group meetings, have ever pondered what kind of policies, rules or changes would improve problem areas.

Because we’re only homeowners who pay outrageously high rates for insultingly few basic services. 

We're not important public servants. We don’t have PhDs or MBAs or law degrees. We don't run businesses. We’re not teachers or coaches.  We don’t know how to discipline, motivate or train or negotiate or mediate. We don't know how to investigate or ask questions or brainstorm solutions. We have nothing of value to help shape a review into local Council culture.

Because Councils and LGV only see our bank accounts, not our brains. 

They’ll decide what what they want us to talk about – and then they’ll make sure we stick to the script, by providing an online form for submissions.

And the Discussion Paper is essentially 37 pages of stating the bleeding obvious.

For example – page 13

“There is a clear and growing problem of poor and unacceptable behaviour in certain sections of the local government sector, particularly amongst some Councillors. The increasing number and severity of instances of poor Councillor behaviour and conduct precedes the last Council elections in 2020….

And

“Recent instances of Councillor misconduct and other forms of poor behaviour have resulted in the dismissal of five Councils1 in the last Council term (2016 – 2020).”

How is it that all the expertise of Local Government  Victoria over the past decade or so, hasn’t managed to identify the problems and work out solutions without an expensive consultant’s report?

After all MPs have just voted in a new Local Government Act 2020 (which failed to ban developer donations even though the IBAC investigation into Casey Council was well underway.)

We’ve yet to see if this Local Government review is a whitewash like the Review into Rate Capping and the Review into the Rating System (which both said everything was fine – because unaffordable and unnecessarily high household rate bills aren’t problematic for Councils or the state government.) 

Read the report. Write a submission via the online form.  We’ve paid for every seat at the table and we deserve to be heard.

by verityinyarraville - Original article Feb 22, updated March 4

State MPs are still sweeping the whole issue of waivers for ratepayers under the carpet,  19 years after the Local Government Act in Victoria made it clear that ratepayers had a right to ask for all or part of their rates to be waived.

The latest rebuff came last week when RPV vice-president Kelvin Granger emailed all Upper House MPs seeking changes to the Local Government Act to force Councils to offer waivers to ratepayers suffering financial hardship.

Due to wishy-washy wording of Section 171(A)  (a person may seek to have all or part of ….rates waived..”) Councils are under no obligation to tell ratepayers they can apply for waiver if they're facing financial hardship.

Not even during Covid. 

Despite a petition to Parliament in 2019, an Ombudsman’s report  last year and meetings with the Local Government Minister Shaun Leane, RPV has been repeatedly refused any commitment for financial relief for ratepayers who’ve lost their job during Covid or been too ill to work.

Neither the Minister nor Councils will even commit to telling ratepayers they can apply for waivers.

Maribyrnong Ratepayers’ Group conducted a social experiment in 2019, supplying their own forms to residents to apply for waivers. The Council rejected every application – after subjecting applicants to intrusive questioning about their personal and family finances.  This is because Section 171(A) also allows Councils to ask applicants whatever they want and gives staff total control to refuse waivers.  

So, when legislation was introduced to Parliament in February to amend several pieces of legislation, including the Local Government Act, RPV wrote to all 40 upper house MPs asking for some action on waivers.

The result: one meeting, one phone call, one written response and 37 automated email replies.

The written response is interesting because the staff of Dr Tien Kieu (ALP) were the only ones to seek a response from the Local Government Minister’s office regarding RPV’s plea for action.

Seven staff were copied in on the email along with two MPs and RPV  received two written replies to the letter from two electorate officers, both in the same office, and saying the same thing.

Both replies assured us that the Government was committed to ‘addressing the Ombudsman’s findings’ – which is not the same as actually providing rate waivers for homeowners who need it.

RPV will keep calling for waivers. We remain hopeful that somewhere among Councils and MPs there will be someone willing to stand up and take action to help homeowners in need.

Image credit: Banksy's wall art of a maid sweeping rubbish under a curtain to hide it.