INCEDULOUS INCURIOSITY

 

When incurious councillors don't read the fine print, ratepayers pay the price.

By Craig Thomson

Updated August 9 2026 - 8:29am, first published 5:55am

The most alarming detail in the City of Launceston councillors' decision to hit some property owners with a 40 per cent rates increase isn't just the size of the rate hike; it's the candid admission by councillors that they voted for a sweeping policy shift without understanding its real-world fallout.

Councillor Tim Walker's admission that he "did not realise the implications" exposes a systemic failure in council governance: approving complex rate strategies on paper without first demanding granular impact modelling. Local democracy breaks down when elected representatives act as rubber stamps for policy documents rather than probing how those decisions affect household budgets.

Launceston Town Hall. Picture by Paul Scambler

Lumping lifestyle properties and cost-neutral hobby farms into the same rate tier as profit-generating commercial hubs fails basic economic logic. Residents like Abby Collins aren't running high-margin enterprises; they are land-rich and cash-neutral. Broad-brush rates strategies designed to "even things out" end up penalising residents who receive few, if any, commercial council services in exchange for their tens of thousands of dollars.

Even the proposed 20 per cent rate cap represents a steep, unbudgeted surge for local families. As Cr Joe Pentridge put it, a 20 per cent cap is nothing more than "kicking someone and then giving them a band-aid." A genuine remedy requires a complete pause and overhaul of the strategy, not a compromise born of political embarrassment.

Local government budget shortfalls should never be balance-sheet problems dumped onto unsuspecting ratepayers overnight. Consider the precedent: the City of Launceston Council previously decided against implementing a differential rate rise for short-stay accommodation owners because an official review concluded short-stays were not a major driver of local housing stress. Where was that basic due diligence before hitting primary producers?

Paying lip service to an unintended consequence doesn't clear a surprise bill of thousands of dollars from a ratepayer's kitchen table. Expecting hobby farmers to swallow a compromise hike to resolve an administrative oversight places an unfair burden on the community.

While it is rare to hear politicians openly admit "we made a mistake," owning up to an error is only step one. If fixing this mess means the council has to absorb the revenue shortfall and tighten its own operational belt, so be it.

The City of Launceston must immediately implement a full 12-month freeze on these revised primary production rates, issue adjusted notices, and fund the difference out of its own budget while a transparent review takes place.

Councillors were elected to scrutinise policy, ask tough questions, and protect their constituents from administrative overreach. Instead, they imposed a crippling financial penalty on more than 500 local properties, then admitted they didn't realise what they were voting for.

That isn't just an administrative blunder; it is a fundamental breach of public trust.

Craig Thomson is the editor of The Examiner.