Craig Ogilvie, Cleveland/North Stradbroke Island, Queensland, Australia

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 you’re 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 can’t 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 I’m 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 can’t 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.


	<--back
	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 you’re 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 can’t 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 I’m 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 can’t 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.