General News
6 August, 2026
Bearing the burden
THE Douglas Shire Ratepayers Association has renewed its criticism of Douglas Shire Council’s rates, claiming ongoing increases are placing an unfair burden on residents and pensioners while calling for greater operational efficiencies.
Association president John Sullivan said the group’s concerns had been heightened by council’s recently adopted 2026-27 budget.
“The past five years, prior to this year’s increase, average rates increased by 37%,” Mr Sullivan said.
“Effective rate increases for some in 2024-25 were 9.4% and 2025-26 were 10.4%.
“While the total yield for rates and charges is around 8.5% for this new financial year, our calculations indicate that many ratepayers will experience increases well above this level.”
The association argues residential ratepayers, particularly pensioners, are bearing the brunt of the increases.
Members claim changes to the differential rating categories have resulted in significant general rate increases across residential areas, while properties in Newell, Cooya and Wonga have been partially shielded because they do not pay sewerage charges, which have increased by 25%.
“The reality is that the majority of properties have had general rate increases of between 12 and 14% when considering rates and service charges,” Mr Sullivan said. According to the association, annual increases range from $304 to $712 for many properties, well above the current inflation forecast.
“This is well above the current expected level of inflation for the coming financial year of 4% – in fact, three times the expected level of inflation,” Mr Sullivan said.
He also expressed concern about reductions to pensioner remissions.
“The plight for pensioners living in these areas, because of the $350 reduction in pensioner remission, means their rates will increase between $654 and $1062 per year,” he said.
“Council is predicting it will make things a lot worse for pensioners in the 2028-29 year, the year after the next council election, with pensioner remissions being reduced by another 34%.”
The association said, while it could not change council’s budget decisions, it would continue advocating for ratepayers facing increasing cost-of-living pressures.
In response, council said it acknowledged the concerns raised by the association and recognised the financial pressures affecting many households.
Council said the 2026-27 budget reflected the rising costs of maintaining infrastructure, delivering services and meeting local government responsibilities, and that decisions on rates and charges were not made lightly. It also said significant increases in land valuations had not been passed directly on to ratepayers.
Council said it continually reviewed its operations to improve efficiency and had introduced financial and operational reforms aimed at strengthening long-term sustainability.
It noted its forecast operating deficit had been reduced from $915,000 to about $600,000 through careful financial management and said it remained on track to achieve a balanced budget in 2027-28 while relying less on rate increases.
Council also defended changes to the differential rating categories, saying they followed a review designed to create a fairer and more equitable rating system by reducing disparities between property categories and the changes were intended to ensure the cost of council services was shared more consistently across the community.
Council disputes the association’s claims and welcomes the opportunity to discuss the issues further with the group.
