![The council does not have to implement the approved special rate variation, Nina Dillon writes. Picture by Louise Thrower. The council does not have to implement the approved special rate variation, Nina Dillon writes. Picture by Louise Thrower.](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/FkT3ZusFw5YrTvZCipmLUF/d5908073-4f90-43a8-ac62-1d7a680bfe0c.JPG/r0_0_4288_2811_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal made the following findings in regard to Goulburn Mulwaree Council's (GMC) proposal for a 51.2 per cent rate rise:
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
- Community awareness - information material GMC provided to residents was not sufficiently clear and contained minimal information as to why the council needed the special rate variation. The material contained incorrect information and did not provide sufficient time for ratepayers to engage.
- Impact on ratepayers - IPART found council did not adequately consider the impact on our residents to pay or the impact on business ratepayers.
- Council productivity and costs - The council had not established a continuous improvement framework to identify and implement productivity and cost containment strategies .
- Financial need - on balance the council had a need but had not canvassed alternatives like a service level review or consulting with ratepayers regarding appropriate services and assets.
This is a huge victory to residents and ratepayers, and is a tribute to the people for coming together and making their voice heard.
Have you heard the people sing?
IPART advised councillors that while the maximum SRV is 22.5pc, councillors are under no obligation to pass on the full 22.5pc.
As councillors reflect on IPART'S responses and community feedback, let us hope that they will listen to their constituents.
The council has 10 years to implement the SRV. I hope that in June the councillors have heard the community and limit the increase for next year to something more affordable - maybe 10pc to 12.5pc .
Splitting the permitted 22.5pc rise over two years might give the community confidence that councillors are listening.
Nina Dillon, Goulburn
Residents of Goulburn Mulwaree may feel justifiably vindicated. On Monday, May 14 the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) published its response to our council's rate rise application.
The response makes compelling reading. The bottom line? Council's request for a total rate rise of 51 per cent over the next three years has been rejected. Instead, seeking to balance financial responsibility with community concerns, IPART has granted a maximum rate increase of 22.5pc for 2024-5, which is then capped for future years.
It is clear from the response that an important factor in IPART's decision-making was the overwhelming community opposition to the proposed rate rise. Although a reduced 22.5pc rise will still be difficult for many people's wallets, this is still a huge victory for residents and ratepayers, and is a tribute to the people of Goulburn Mulwaree for making their voice heard. To paraphrase that rousing finale from Les Misérables - "Have you heard the people sing?"
Now that IPART have released their response, our councillors are faced with a number of decisions. One of these will be the actual vote regarding rates for 2024-25. Although IPART has set a maximum ceiling for a rate rise, councillors are under no obligation to pass on the full 22.5pc. As our councillors reflect on IPART's response, let us hope that they will now listen to their constituents.
Without sounding overly dramatic, let's remember that famous Churchillian call to action: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Christopher O'Mahony, Goulburn
![It's difficult for residents to see oncoming traffic when emerging from 'Faithfull Lane' into Faithfull Street, Charles Weyman says. Picture by Louise Thrower. It's difficult for residents to see oncoming traffic when emerging from 'Faithfull Lane' into Faithfull Street, Charles Weyman says. Picture by Louise Thrower.](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/FkT3ZusFw5YrTvZCipmLUF/c9e740c8-820e-4794-a8ed-3d5f0e009955.JPG/r0_90_4032_2984_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
Parking challenges
I recently visited Goulburn Mulwaree Council to request that some limited parking be organised at the entrance of Faithfull Lane - off Faithfull Street. It is very hard to see oncoming traffic when coming into Faithfull Street from the lane.
The receptionist was very helpful and spoke, I think, to an engineer. He said that nothing could be done as this was a dedicated parking area. My inspection of this side of Faithfull St found that out of 28 vehicles parked, only seven had the necessary parking authority on show.
Maybe an inspection of the area may raise some funds from fines, instead of raising rates on law abiding property owners!
Charles Weyman, Goulburn
'Inconvenient truth about emissions'
At the risk of being labelled a denier, call me a sceptic if you like, there are questions about climate change, or whether renewables are the future, that need to be answered before the madness begins and from which there will be no turning back.
The inconvenient truth is that fossil fuels contribute just 1.2 per cent of global CO2 emissions, not 40pc. It is true they make up 40pc of manmade emissions, but these are only 3pc of total global emissions. (40pc of 3pc is 1.2pc), so the question is 'how can it be claimed that they contribute anywhere near 40pc of all CO2 emissions when the remaining 97pc are natural emissions?' On that basis, it can't. This is clearly misinformation designed to confuse
A recent CSIRO article Illustrates the point. It posed the rhetorical question: 'What are the sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?' And the answer: '90pc, of the world's carbon emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels'. Amazingly, the remaining 97pc of natural emissions of CO2 were ignored.
It is worth noting that Mark Howden, the head of climate change at the CSIRO is also vice-chair of The International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), whose fifth report similarly massaged the truth. It stated categorically that "fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - are by far the largest contributor to climate change, accounting for over 75pc of global greenhouse emissions, and nearly 9opc of all carbon emissions".
When Alan Jones, well known radio commentator, claimed we shouldn't be so concerned about human emissions of CO2 because they are only 3pc of global emissions, he was rubbished by panellist and scientist on Q&A, David Karoly. While Karoly agreed that CO2 made up 0.04% of the atmosphere, he said, although that was true, CO2 levels had risen from 280ppm, since we started burning fossil fuels, to 400ppm today, an increase of 120ppm or 40pc, not 3pc.
![Head of climate change at the CSIRO and vice-chair of The International Panel of Climate Change, Mark Howden. Picture supplied. Head of climate change at the CSIRO and vice-chair of The International Panel of Climate Change, Mark Howden. Picture supplied.](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/gywbueqZZHQZMQ4rq7ttjV/d4a6d47e-91ae-4cd7-972c-3e058fa30b1c.jpg/r0_0_3893_2933_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
There are two problems with that proposition. Firstly, Alan Jones was making the point about current emissions, which are 3pc of global emissions. Secondly, in spite of this, Karoly persisted in using changes in atmospheric CO2 out of context and in a strangely convoluted way, to discredit Jones's argument.
He deduced the fact by selectively quoting the lowest reading of atmospheric CO2, which was 280ppm, using The Pentekoffer method, prior to the introduction of infrared measurement in 1958. In fact, the Pentekoffer Co2 measurements, ranged from 280ppm to 400ppm over 200 years. They weren't a constant 280ppm, so to infer they were, and then to insinuate the difference between CO2 levels then and now, is proof that anthropogenic climate change is responsible for 40pc of all CO2 emissions, is an absolute misrepresentation of the facts.
These are some of the issues and questions that need to be answered and addressed, before we rush headlong into something we might regret, based on opinion and misinformation, rather than truth and fact.