At its November 2025 meeting Hawkesbury Council decided in an 7:4 vote to hike everyone’s rates by 39.4% over four years.
I voted against it, like I voted against the last rate hike in 2017 which was for 31.3% over three years. This means that between 2018 and 2029 Council will have lifted rates above the rate peg for 7 of those 11 years.
There’s a lot to unpack here, but I’d like to make the distinction between the amount of the rate rise and the limitations Council faces in ensuring that the distribition of the way we spread taxes is fair.
At our October meeting I brought a motion about commissioning Council to produce a report on ‘rating fairness’, and particularly to emphasise ‘horizontal equity’ – a term used to economists to mean “If two people have the same access to services and possess similar demographic circumstances then they should pay.
This is something I have been explaining to people for many years.
The anger expressed by Hawkesbury ratepayers about the proposed Special Rate Variation (SRV) comes in part from a belief that the rating burden is not spread fairly throughout the district. I was pleased that a majority of Councillors supported a motion I brought which asks Council to look at the fairness issue, and honour the principles of the guidance documents that the State Government require us to follow when setting rates.
When it came to the vote on the SRV itself, I supported an amendment that sought to defer a decision on any SRV until late 2026, and that the time between now and then would be gainfully spent examining Council’s expenditures and other ways of funding its programs. This amendment was defeated and the SRV was passed.
The key facts you should know are:
💰 It was the most expensive of the four options tabled, save that it will be rolled out over 4 years instead of 3.
📆 The last SRV finished its rollout only four years ago, yet was billed as the thing that would “fix” Council’s finances.
🙅♂️ Among the reasons why I voted against it was that Council has not done the work it should have to do a root-and-branch review of our operations, including over road repairs and finding other sources of income, before declaring this as a ‘last resort’ option. 💡 People will say the amendment Councillor Mike Creed brought merely delayed a decision. Wrong: It may have led to solutions that would not have necessitated a rise quite this big.
👍🏻 People say that the vote wasn’t to finalise the hike and that IPART has the last word. Unlikely: IPART is overwhelmingly likely to rubber stamp what Council is now sending them.
🚧 Worse, the SRV information presented to the public deliberately omitted a capital works program which for example could have named specific roads. The list exists – I’ve seen it. This would have permitted ratepayers to see which assets in which suburbs would have benefitted from an accelerated program of maintenance. This is something we regarded as critical to bringing people with us on the last SRV. No wonder people failed to see the value or necessity of it; we failed to lay it out clearly enough.
🥧 Still pending of course will be the results of the motion I passed last month about improving the formula which determines whether rates across property-types are fair. Remember: the SRV is the size of the pie, the formula is the proportion of each slice, which I think is out of whack. 🗳️ When I was a member of the Liberal party I upheld its values including that governments should tax less, tax fairly, and always seek to reform the system itself. I was disappointed to see some Liberals both completely out of touch and split on this critical issue.