North Burnett Ratepayers Alliance: Budget Adoption Deficiencies and Remedial Action

Overview of Submission to North Burnett Regional Council regarding Budget and 19%-25% rate Rise

We at the North Burnett Ratepayers Alliance, have done comprehensive research into the 2025-2026 North Burnett Regional Councils 19%-25% rate rise. After careful consideration we have emailed a submission to the CEO of the North Burnett Regional council.

Below, are some resources if you wish to get a further understanding of what is in the submission.
To ensure ease of understanding and to include different prefferences we include 4 parts

Short Video overview

Podcast with 2 people discussing the submission.

Overview of Submission for the Budget and Rates Adoption Process

Date: 3rd August 2025

Subject: Review of Formal Submission from North Burnett Ratepayers Alliance (NBRA) Regarding Systemic Procedural Deficiencies in the 2025-2026 Budget Adoption Process

Purpose: This briefing document summarizes the key themes, arguments, and requests presented in the formal submission from the North Burnett Ratepayers Alliance (NBRA) to the North Burnett Regional Council (NBRC) CEO, Mr. Matheson, concerning the adoption of the 2025-2026 budget and the 25% general rate increase.

Executive Summary

The North Burnett Ratepayers Alliance (NBRA), representing a significant number of concerned ratepayers, asserts that the North Burnett Regional Council (NBRC) engaged in a decision-making process for the 2025-2026 budget that was fundamentally flawed, lacking adherence to both the Council’s own internal policies and the Queensland Local Government Act 2009. The NBRA alleges a “cascade of systemic governance failures” that led to the “unprecedented 25% general rate increase,” resulting in significant “reputational damage, disillusionment and loss of public confidence.”

The core of the NBRA’s argument centers on the claim that the 25% rate increase figure was presented to Councillors only one week prior to the budget adoption vote, effectively precluding “informed and diligent decision-making” and leading to a “Policy Cascade” failure across multiple critical governance frameworks. The submission specifically details alleged breaches of the Council’s Enterprise Risk Management Policy (2213), Community Engagement and Consultation Policy (2215), and Revenue Policy (1111), along with a failure to uphold the overarching principles of the Local Government Act 2009.

To remedy these deficiencies and rebuild community trust, the NBRA proposes two immediate actions: an independent process audit of the budget adoption and the establishment of a Community Budget Review Taskforce.

Main Themes and Key Allegations

The NBRA’s submission highlights several critical themes:

1. Foundational Governance Failure: Insufficient Time for Diligent Decision-Making

• Core Allegation: The final 25% general rate increase figure was presented to Councillors only one week before the formal budget adoption vote, making “meaningful participation” impossible.
• Quote: “The central and most critical flaw, as identified in the Analysis, is the allegation that the final, definitive 25% figure for the general rate increase was presented to Councillors as the preferred increase only one week prior to the formal budget adoption vote.”
• Impact: This “compressed timeline” prevented elected members from “scrutinise proposals, model alternatives, understand consequences, and consult with constituents,” reducing their role to “rubber-stamping a predetermined outcome.”
• Evidence: An anecdote details a Councillor needing to ask for a “basic financial comparison between a 10% and a 25% rate rise during the very meeting where the vote was held.” This points to a “critical breakdown in the flow of information from the administration.”

2. Systemic Non-Compliance with Enterprise Risk Management Framework (Policy 2213)

• Core Allegation: The budget process was “reactive” and ignored the Council’s own Enterprise Risk Management Policy (2213) and Strategic Risk Register (Oct 2021).
• Quote: “The decision-making process for the rate increase appears to be a textbook example of reactive management, undertaken in direct contradiction to the core principle of the NBRC’s Enterprise Risk Management Policy (2213), which explicitly mandates an ’emphasis on proactive rather than reactive risk management practices’.”
• Specific Breaches of Strategic Risks:Strategic Risk #1 (Constrained Revenue): Instead of applying “prescribed treatments” like “Long Term Financial modelling…to the Ratepayers and their farms and businesses,” the Council “resorted directly to a rate hike, thereby embodying the causes of the risk rather than applying its cure.”
• Strategic Risk #2 (Systemic Change or Disruption): The Council allegedly failed to commission an “Economic Impact Statement for such a substantial financial extraction,” ignoring prescribed treatments for dealing with council-induced economic disruption.
• Strategic Risk #3 (Failing to Meet Community Expectations): The “rushed vote followed by ‘after the fact’ public meetings” directly fulfilled the register’s warning of “Reputational damage, disillusionment and loss of public confidence.”

3. Material Breach of Community Engagement and Consultation Policy (Policy 2215)

• Core Allegation: The Council’s primary community engagement occurred after the budget was formally adopted, directly violating its own policy.
• Quote: “Under the core principle of ‘Appropriate’ engagement, Policy 2215 contains an unequivocal prohibition, stating: ‘engagement will not be undertaken where a decision has already been made’.”
• Impact: This violates the “Timely” principle, which states “Engagement activities should occur when community members and stakeholders have the best chance of influencing outcomes and not so late in the process that it simply confirms decisions already made.” This is not “genuine engagement” but a “superficial exercise designed to manage public anger.”

4. Contradiction of Stated Revenue Principles (Policy 1111)

• Core Allegation: The budget process did not “respond to the needs of the general community,” a stated principle of the Revenue Policy (1111).
• Quote: “A process that does not include comprehensive, pre-decisional consultation to ascertain the community’s needs, priorities, and capacity to absorb a severe financial shock cannot credibly claim to be ‘responding to the needs of the general community’.”
• Potential Perverse Incentive: The NBRA suggests an internal CEO/senior management KPI of “no reduction in services to community” might have created “immense pressure to find revenue from the only source the Council fully controls: general rates,” thus avoiding discussions about service levels and efficiencies with the community.

5. Failure to Uphold Overarching Principles of the Local Government Act 2009

• Core Allegation: The procedural failures constitute a direct failure to uphold the statutory duties enshrined in Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2009.
• Principles Violated:“Transparent and effective processes, and decision-making in the public interest.” (The process was “not effective or transparent.”)
• “Democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement.” (Engagement after a decision is “not meaningful engagement.”)
• Quote: “a systemic, material, and demonstrable failure to follow these policies is, by logical extension, a demonstrable failure to uphold the principles of the Act itself.”

Proposed Path Forward & Requested Actions

The NBRA proposes two immediate actions to restore good governance and community trust:

1. Immediate Action: Commission an Independent Process Audit

• Request: A vote to commission a “fully independent audit of the 2025-2026 budget adoption process” by a “qualified external firm.”
• Scope: The audit’s Terms of Reference (to be made public) must assess adherence to ERM Policy (2213), Community Engagement and Consultation Policy (2215), Revenue Policy (1111), Strategic Risk Register treatments, and the Local Government Act 2009 principles.
• Transparency: The “final, full, and unredacted report” must be “published on the Council’s website for public review.”

1. Immediate Action: Establish a Community Budget Review Taskforce

• Request: Immediate establishment of a taskforce comprising “community representatives, local business leaders, and financial and agricultural sector experts.”
• Mandate: Conduct a “comprehensive, line-by-line review of all Council service levels, operational efficiencies, and asset management plans” to identify “potential savings, alternative service delivery models…and other strategies to alleviate the severe rate pressure.”
• Purpose: To “retroactively conduct the comprehensive, collaborative process that should have occurred prior to the budget’s adoption” and enact “meaningful community engagement.”

Conclusion and Escalation Warning

The NBRA concludes by reiterating that the “reputational damage, disillusionment and loss of public confidence” is a “direct and predictable consequence of the chosen process.” They formally request a written response from the CEO within 14 days, detailing how the Council intends to address the identified breaches and whether it will implement the proposed remedial actions. The NBRA explicitly states their intention to “escalate this matter with the Ombudsman and the, Office of the Independent Assessor (OIA), Minister for Local Government and the media” if their concerns are not adequately addressed.

Questions and Answers of Each Section.

1. What is the North Burnett Ratepayers Alliance (NBRA) and what is the purpose of their formal submission?

The North Burnett Ratepayers Alliance (NBRA) is a body representing concerned ratepayers in the North Burnett region. Their formal submission to the North Burnett Regional Council (NBRC) CEO is to express profound concerns and provide a detailed analysis of the decision-making process that led to an unprecedented 25% general rate increase for the 2025-2026 financial year. The NBRA believes the Council failed to adhere to its own compliance guidelines and the Local Government Act 2009.

2. What are the core allegations regarding the budget adoption process, specifically concerning the 25% rate increase?

The core allegation is that the final 25% rate increase figure was presented to Councillors only one week before the formal budget adoption vote, despite earlier discussions centering on a more moderate increase of up to 10%. This compressed timeline is seen as fundamentally incompatible with diligent consideration and prevents elected members from effectively scrutinizing proposals and consulting with constituents. The NBRA argues this constitutes a “foundational governance failure” that triggered a “Policy Cascade” failure, meaning other dependent policies could not be properly executed.

3. How did the Council’s decision-making process allegedly fail to comply with its Enterprise Risk Management Framework (Policy 2213)?

The Council’s process is alleged to be a reactive management approach, directly contradicting its Enterprise Risk Management Policy (2213), which emphasizes proactive risk management. The NBRA claims the Council was aware of its procedural weaknesses (as noted in its Strategic Risk Register) but proceeded with a high-impact decision using a process that ignored treatments designed to mitigate known vulnerabilities. Specifically, the submission highlights failures to adequately address strategic risks related to “Constrained Revenue,” “Systemic Change or Disruption,” and “Failing to meet community expectations,” stating that the Council’s actions realized these risks instead of managing them.

4. In what ways did the Council allegedly breach its Community Engagement and Consultation Policy (Policy 2215)?

The Council is accused of a clear and material breach of its Community Engagement and Consultation Policy (2215). The most unambiguous breach is the timing of “consultation,” which occurred “after the fact,” meaning after the decision to adopt the budget was already made. This directly violates the policy’s principle that “engagement will not be undertaken where a decision has already been made” and that “engagement activities should occur when community members… have the best chance of influencing outcomes.” The NBRA argues this was not genuine engagement but rather a superficial exercise.

5. How does the NBRA argue the Council contradicted its Revenue Principles (Policy 1111)?

The NBRA argues that the process violated the spirit and intent of the Council’s Revenue Policy (1111), which requires the Council to have regard for principles including “equity” and “responding to the needs of the general community” when setting rates. The lack of comprehensive, pre-decisional consultation meant the Council could not credibly claim to be responding to the community’s needs or capacity to absorb such a financial shock. The submission suggests that an internal Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for senior management related to “no reduction in services to community” might have created a “perverse incentive,” leading the Council to prioritize revenue generation through rate hikes over community consultation and service level discussions.

6. What overarching principles of the Local Government Act 2009 are the Council’s actions alleged to have failed to uphold?

The series of procedural failures is elevated to a failure to uphold the statutory duties imposed by the Local Government Act 2009, specifically two foundational principles outlined in Section 4:

1. Transparent and effective processes, and decision-making in the public interest: The rushed process that curtailed deliberation time and bypassed risk assessment is deemed neither effective nor transparent.
2. Democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement: Engaging the community only after a decision is made is, by definition, not meaningful engagement. The NBRA asserts that the systemic failure to follow internal policies (risk management, community engagement, revenue) demonstrates a failure to uphold the Act’s principles.

7. What immediate remedial actions does the North Burnett Ratepayers Alliance propose?

The NBRA proposes two immediate remedial actions to restore good governance and community trust:

1. Commission an Independent Process Audit: A formal request for the Council to vote and commission a fully independent audit of the 2025-2026 budget adoption process by a qualified external firm. The audit’s Terms of Reference and the full, unredacted report must be made public.
2. Establish a Community Budget Review Taskforce: A formal request for the Council to immediately establish a taskforce comprised of community representatives, local business leaders, and financial/agricultural experts. This taskforce would conduct a comprehensive review of Council service levels, operational efficiencies, and asset management plans to identify potential savings and alternative service delivery models.

8. What is the NBRA’s ultimate conclusion and what are their expectations for a formal response?

The NBRA concludes that the 19%-25% general rate increase resulted from a decision-making process characterized by a “cascade of systemic governance failures,” being rushed, non-compliant with Council policies, and failing to uphold the Local Government Act 2009. They state that the current “reputational damage, disillusionment and loss of public confidence” was a direct and predictable consequence warned about in the Council’s own risk documentation. The NBRA formally requests a written response from the CEO within 14 days detailing how the Council intends to address the identified breaches and specifically committing to or rejecting the two proposed immediate remedial actions, with reasons for any rejection. They reserve the right to escalate the matter to relevant State Government bodies and the media.