Why Bundaberg's agricultural rates are fair

Using valuations to determine rates isn't necessarily ideal. However, it's what we have to work with until State Governments across Australia come up with a better model.

The Bundaberg region has some unique challenges with valuations because property has experienced rapid gains in coastal areas and horticulture while other sectors remain relatively stagnant.

My colleague deputy mayor Bill Trevor often reminds me it was only a few years ago that Woodgate Beach copped the brunt of a valuation spike, but he points out that farmers weren't protesting on that occasion!

Let's look at some of the arguments being put forward by Canegrowers, BFVG and AgForce.

MYTH: Farmers are being treated unfairly.

FACT: Valuations rose 46 per cent across the entire agricultural category. Most other ratepayers had little or no increase in their valuations.

To offset this, Council either had to budget for an increased deficit (already $5.2 million) or spread the impact of higher agricultural rates across other categories.

Councillors decided it would have been unfair on residential pensioners, mums and dads and small businesses for them to subsidise agricultural ratepayers whose wealth from holding land increased substantially.

MYTH: Council increased rates for everyone by removing the early payment discount.

FACT: Council reduced the rate in the dollar and minimum general rate for all rating classes to offset the removal of the discount. For the agricultural sector, the rate in the dollar was reduced from 1.5492c to 1.4077c. The rate in the dollar is the lowest it's been for this category since 2013-14.

Rates were reduced, stayed the same or had minimal change for more than 80pc of ratepayers.

MYTH: Rate hikes for farmers have gone up by as much as 235pc and an average increase of 100pc.

FACT: Only one property went up 235pc and the valuation for that property changed from $113,000 to $375,000.

The average increase in total rates and charges for agricultural properties was 45pc (in line with the 46pc valuation increase), not 100pc as claimed.

MYTH: Rates from farmers went from $5m in 2019 to $10m in 2020.

FACT: Agricultural general rates revenue went from about $7.6m to $10m. That's a variance of $2.4m not including the early payment discount. A lot less than $5m!

MYTH: Council has not spoken with farmers about the rate increases.

FACT: Council met with Bundaberg Canegrowers and Isis Canegrowers before setting the budget. They were aware of the increased valuations and the potential impact on their members, also the consequences from COVID-19 on Council's finances.

MYTH: Council doesn't provide services to agricultural ratepayers.

FACT: Council delivers many services to farmers including land protection, animal control, biosecurity, grading roads, emergency management and maintaining rural halls.

Council projects which have benefited agricultural ratepayers include:

- Advocacy on sugar industry transition and Paradise Dam.

- Working with BFVG to develop skills in horticulture.

- Establishing an Ag Tech Hub.

- Replacing bridges on Winfield Road.

- Upgrading Avondale Waste Transfer Station.

- Completing the Givelda Flood Evacuation Route.

- Numerous road upgrades, including $7m in maintenance on rural roads.

- Fast tracking the Booyal to Wallaville cane rail extension.

- Helped provide free water from the Cordalba Standpipe during the drought.

- Rural roadside spraying and drainage maintenance.

- Developing a planning strategy to maintain agricultural buffers.

- Providing a 50pc discount from Council development charges for rural activities (e.g. intensive horticulture, rural industry, intensive animal industry)

- Development currently under way of a "right to farm" policy to support the rural sector

- Allowing private irrigation pipes within Council's road reserves.

MYTH: Council is forcing farmers off the land and should grant a collective hardship concession.

FACT: This doesn't make sense because nearly 80pc of agricultural ratepayers have already paid their rates without requesting hardship relief.

Some agricultural ratepayers are doing it tough but Canegrowers and BFVG haven't presented any evidence to show all their members are struggling so much they can't pay rates, which are tax deductible.

Some agricultural ratepayers are multinational corporations and it's hard to conceive how they might be battling so hard they can't afford to pay.

Individuals can already apply for support under Council's hardship policy, but they need to provide proof of their circumstances.

Individual ratepayers who are suffering genuine financial distress can negotiate payment terms under the hardship policy.

It's been publicly reported that Canegrowers, BFVG and AgForce are running an organised campaign against agricultural rate rises.

Everyone is entitled to run political campaigns in a democracy, but they should be truthful.

Despite the pressure, Council won't be reissuing rates notices or providing a blanket concession to an entire category, thereby shifting valuation impacts to residential pensioners, mums and dads and small businesses.

Agricultural industry organisations would give their members better value for money by raising awareness in Brisbane about the long-term pain of taking water from Paradise Dam, especially with a State Election coming up.

I ask Canegrowers, BFVG and AgForce if they condone the misinformation and personal attacks contained on their campaign Facebook page?

In particular, the attack this week on Cr Steve Cooper is appalling. They've taken his comments in June completely out of context to score a cheap political point.

As mayor I've always strived to unite our different communities and work with industry stakeholders to achieve the best possible outcomes for the Bundaberg Region.

We might have disagreements from time to time, but we should all work together for the overall wellbeing of our community.