While people are publisizing a 25% increase in North Burnett rates, for anyone who paid on time the loss of the 5% discount means a 30% rise.
Research on possible actions that can be done.
The following is a overview of a 26page report done on the councils actions, what they have possibly done that maybe questioned and a course of action that could be taken. If you would like the full report please let me know and I will make it available.
Here is a podcast overview you can listen to if you would rather not read the information.
Feeling the Pinch? A Deep Dive into North Burnett’s 25% Rate Hike and What You Can Do
If you’re a ratepayer in the North Burnett region, you’ve probably heard the news: the council has approved a budget that will see the minimum general rate skyrocket by 25% for the 2025-2026 financial year. This isn’t just a small adjustment; it’s a decision that has left many residents describing the increase as “exorbitant and unsustainable.”
This guide will break down the council’s decision, compare it to the rest of Queensland, and outline a clear, step-by-step plan for the community to challenge this unprecedented increase.
More Than Just a Rate Rise: Deconstructing the Full Cost
The 25% figure is just the beginning. The financial changes are multifaceted and impact almost every charge levied by the council.
- The Headline Rise: The cornerstone is a 25% increase on the minimum general rate for all property types. This flat increase disproportionately affects owners of lower-valued properties.
- For Higher Value Properties: If your property’s value means you already pay above the minimum, the ‘cent-in-the-dollar’ calculation will go up by 19%.
- Service Charges: All separate charges for essential services, including sewerage, water, and waste collection, are set to rise by 19%.
- Levies: Important levies for things like Local Disaster Management and Natural Resource Management will also increase by about 19%.
- No More Discount: The council has also abolished the 5% discount for paying rates early. For those who budget to pay on time, this is another effective price hike on top of everything else and removes an incentive many other councils use to encourage prompt payment.
When you add it all up, the council itself estimates the average owner-occupier will see their total bill increase by about 22%. This translates to an extra $818.74 per year, or about $31.49 a fortnight.
The Council’s Reasoning: A Decade of Deficits
The North Burnett Regional Council (NBRC) has defended these severe measures as a necessary response to a dire financial situation. This budget marks the ninth consecutive year the council will be in an operating deficit, having not seen a surplus since the 2016-2017 financial year.
They point to unavoidable cost increases over the past two years, including:
- Insurance costs up by 30%.
- Road resealing costs up by 38%.
- Mowing and slashing costs up by 33%.
- Water treatment chemical costs up by 30%.
While these pressures are real, they don’t tell the whole story. The focus on recent inflation hides a more critical, long-term failure of financial governance. The deficit is a chronic condition, not a sudden illness, pointing to years of inadequate financial planning.
The most alarming evidence of this is how the council handled its 2024-2025 books. They reported an operating deficit of $4.207 million. However, this was only achieved because they received a 50% advance on their 2025-2026 Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grant. Without that advance, the true deficit for 2024-2025 would have been a staggering $10.648 million. This accounting maneuver, using future money to plug a current-year hole, is the opposite of sustainable financial management and put the council in an even deeper hole for the 2025-26 budget cycle.
An “Exorbitant” Outlier: How NBRC Compares to Other Councils
Is a 25% increase normal? The evidence says no. A recent benchmarking snapshot across 11 major Queensland councils found the average rate and utilities increase was just 5.6%—less than a quarter of what NBRC has imposed.
Let’s look at what other regional councils did for the same 2025-26 budget period:
- Western Downs Regional Council: Approved a 3.5% increase across all categories.
- Bundaberg Regional Council: Settled on a 6.49% increase for residential properties.
- Noosa Shire Council: Limited their total rate increase to 6.7%.
- Toowoomba Regional Council: Adopted a 9.5% average general rate rise.
This data shows the NBRC’s increase is four to seven times higher than its peers. This huge difference can’t be explained by general economic conditions alone; it points directly to severe and localized financial mismanagement.
The Road Not Taken: Tools NBRC Failed to Use
The argument that the council’s decision was unreasonable is made stronger by the fact that they ignored well-established tools used by other councils to protect ratepayers from rate shock.
- Case Study 1: Townsville City Council: Faced with a 27% average increase in land valuations, the council deliberately lowered its ‘rate-in-the-dollar’ by 18%. They did this specifically to “help ease the cost-of-living pressure,” preventing what would have been a 22% rate hike.
- Case Study 2: Moreton Bay & Gladstone: These councils use “rate capping.” This sets a maximum percentage your rates can go up in one year, regardless of land valuation changes. For 2025-26, Moreton Bay capped increases at 15% for eligible residential properties. The NBRC has not implemented such a protective policy.
- Case Study 3: Valuation Averaging: The law allows councils to average land valuations over two or three years to smooth out volatile changes. There is no evidence NBRC considered this tool.
The failure to use any of these standard mitigation tools suggests the “exorbitant” rate hike was not an unavoidable outcome, but a direct result of the council’s administrative choices. This can be framed as a failure in their duty to act prudently and adhere to the principles of fairness and predictability.
A Two-Pronged Strategy for Challenging the Decision
A successful challenge requires a coordinated, dual-stream approach: a formal administrative challenge combined with a political and community campaign.
Path 1: The Formal and Administrative Challenge
This path uses official channels to argue the council’s process was flawed.
- Formal Complaint to the CEO: Before anything else, you must exhaust internal processes. The most relevant option is to lodge a formal “Administrative Action Complaint” with the council’s CEO. This shouldn’t just say “rates are too high.” It must be a detailed submission arguing the decision breaches the principles of predictability and reasonableness, and that the council failed to use available mitigation tools.
- Complaint to the Queensland Ombudsman: The Ombudsman rarely investigates the amount of a rate increase, as this is seen as a political decision. However, they will investigate if the council failed to follow correct processes or policies. The complaint should focus on the council’s administrative failures: breaching governing principles, failing to consider mitigation tools, and the questionable financial management shown by using the grant advance.
Path 2: The Political and Community Campaign
This path runs in parallel and aims to apply political pressure on the elected councillors to review their decision.
- Form a Ratepayers’ Association: An organised group is far more effective. Formalising an association creates a single voice, adds credibility, and allows for pooling resources.
- Develop a Submission and Petition: The core of the campaign is a single, powerful, evidence-based submission using the arguments and comparisons in this guide. This should be factual and objective. This document should be attached to a petition calling for the council to rescind the budget and develop a new one with a more reasonable rate rise.
- Directly Lobby Councillors: The submission and petition should be used to lobby the Mayor and six councillors. Email each member, request meetings, and use public participation sessions at council meetings to present your case calmly and factually.
- Leverage the Media: Public pressure is a powerful tool. Prepare a media release, offer a spokesperson for interviews, write letters to the editor, and use social media to keep the community informed and engaged.
Escalating to the State Government
If the council refuses to budge, the final avenue is the State Government, which has ultimate authority over local councils.
The key people to contact are the local State Member for Callide and the Minister for Local Government, The Hon. Ann Leahy MP. The request must be framed strategically. You are not just complaining about high rates; you are formally requesting a Ministerial review based on the belief that the NBRC is “incapable of performing its responsibilities” regarding financial sustainability.
The goal is not to have the council dissolved—a power reserved for only the most extreme cases—but to trigger a formal review of the NBRC’s financial management practices by the Department of Local Government. This is a more achievable “ask” that falls within the Minister’s responsibilities.
By following this disciplined, evidence-based strategy, the ratepayers of North Burnett can hold their council to account and advocate for a financial future that is sustainable for the council and, most importantly, manageable for the community it serves.
3 comments
Well written, but there’s a small flaw in the logic—particularly around the case studies. The councils mentioned (like Townsville and Moreton Bay) used mitigation tools because land valuation increases would have pushed rates up beyond what was needed to fund services. Those tools helped them avoid collecting more than necessary.
In contrast, NBRC isn’t facing a windfall in valuations. They’re increasing rates simply to meet their current service obligations and maintain a barely sustainable budget. They’re not trying to limit the increase—they’re claiming this massive rise is the minimum required.
A better question to ask might be: If this has been a financial problem for nearly a decade, why hasn’t anything been done in the last three years to address it? Why wasn’t action taken earlier to avoid such a drastic jump all at once?
Hi Gavin. Thanks for your comments, you are totally correct, I did see it but left it in the conversation as we seek dialogue with the council. Best guess since its been 4 years since the last we are in line for new valuations in the next year.
I do have an updated Overview of the performance of the council from 2020 till 1 qtr 2025. It is an indication of lack of planning and also some accounting practises that can lead to approach the ombudsman if we do not get satisfaction from the council.
The problem is we need to process each step in sequence to have any chance of holding them accountable.
The first step is to get approval from a number of ratepayers to proceed. First, taking out the emotions and sticking to a plan that gets to the root of the problem and moving through the steps without emotions.
Well researched article John. Thank you.
After the initial shockwave spread through out the district people have resigned themselves to the increase believing they are helpless.
But with a Mayor, that has been known to say, he wants a 100% rates increase this is just the beginning.
Currently our local administration has a CEO that was implicated in a government grants rort in 2010, a council member that engaged in inappropriate behaviour in 2023, and 3 executives and a mayor who’s wages amount to more than a million dollars.
Perhaps if the elected council members were voluntarily, not paid, and actually represented our will, we could work with them.
But it seems to be a rules for thee and not for me situation.
I sincerely hope that we can come together and find a better way forward, but solutions will not becoming from the elected and those employees who are ensuring their own job security in the form of hundreds of thousands from the rates increase.