The People’s Case: Response to the North Burnett Regional Council’s 2025-26 Rate Increase

62

My Take on the increase and info in this article.

I accept I may have missed a few things. This has been the result of research of all available North Burnett Councils available online documents. It is up to the 2023-2024 Annual reports and the 3rd quater 2025 report. This is approx 8000 pages. Much has been double checked. There are some citations below for some of the information. The initial study covered more than 500 web sources. Unfortunately much of the Councils through Queensland do not have easily accessible data.
It was done not to critisize the Council but to do a deep analysis on some issues that have been compounding and to also seek to look for solutions moving forward.
For the Mayor and Councilors, name calling, critisizing people who were elected by the majority of the ratepayers in their area and are trying thier best to do a job that seems to always have 50% of the people against you will not help. Its time to help with ideas and plans to learn from the past and move to the future.
We need to also hold State Government accountable, We are paying 25% of our rates to roads, 3% of the roads with 0.12% of the QLD population. So much for supporting us. Time to get them to step up too.

John Krechting.

Podcast if you prefer to listen to a overview rather than Read the information.

The podcast is only an overview there is a lot more information in the report below.

Part 1: The Case Against the North Burnett Regional Council’s Revenue Policy

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the North Burnett Regional Council’s (NBRC) 2025-26 budget and its associated revenue measures. It presents a detailed, evidence-based framework for the ratepayers of the North Burnett region to challenge the unprecedented rate increase. The analysis demonstrates that the Council’s justification for the exorbitant hike is undermined by a documented history of systemic financial mismanagement, a failure to adequately advocate for a fair state funding model for its disproportionately large road network, a failure to leverage available state government support mechanisms, and a disregard for the socio-economic realities of its community. The evidence presented herein is drawn exclusively from the Council’s own public records, including its annual reports, quarterly updates, and public statements, supplemented by comparative data from peer councils across Queensland. This document is intended to serve as a foundational brief for a coordinated community campaign aimed at compelling the Council to adopt a more equitable, sustainable, and responsible approach to its financial obligations.

Section 1.1: An Unprecedented and Inequitable Burden

The financial measures adopted by the North Burnett Regional Council in its 2025-26 budget represent one of the most substantial single-year increases in financial burden imposed by a Queensland local government in recent history. The decision extends far beyond a simple rate rise, encompassing a multi-faceted and punitive increase across nearly all council-levied charges. This section deconstructs the full scope of the increase, analyses its disproportionate human impact on a vulnerable community, and frames the Council’s decision not merely as a financial necessity but as a matter of profound social inequity.

Detailed Breakdown of the Rate Increase

The Council’s revenue strategy for 2025-26 is composed of several compounding elements that collectively create an extreme financial shock for ratepayers. These elements are:

• A 25% Increase on the Minimum General Rate: The cornerstone of the new policy is a blanket 25% increase on the minimum general rate across all rating categories.¹ This flat percentage increase is a blunt instrument that disproportionately affects properties at the lower end of the valuation scale, which are often owned by residents with the least capacity to absorb such a significant cost increase.
• A 19% Increase on the ‘Cent-in-the-Dollar’ Rate: For properties with a rateable value that results in a general rate assessment above the new, higher minimum, a 19% increase to the ‘cent-in-the-dollar’ calculation will apply.¹
• Widespread Increases in Charges and Levies: The general rate hike is compounded by across-the-board increases in other essential service charges. All separate charges, which include sewerage, water supply, and waste collection, are set to rise by 19%.¹ Furthermore, levies for Local Disaster Management, Natural Resource Management, and Landfill Management will also increase by between 19% and 19.4%.²
• Abolition of the Early Payment Discount: A particularly punitive component of the increase is the abolition of the 5% discount for the early payment of general rates.¹ For ratepayers who have historically managed their finances to take advantage of this discount, its removal constitutes an additional effective rate rise on top of the already steep increases. This policy change penalizes prompt payment and removes a key incentive that many other councils, including Toowoomba, Noosa, and Western Downs, retain to encourage timely revenue collection and manage their own cash flow.³
• Introduction of New Rating Categories: The Council is also introducing additional rating categories, including a new category for residential properties that are not a principal place of residence, which will attract a higher minimum rate.² While this information is available on the council’s website, the cumulative financial impact of these changes, delivered in a single budget cycle, places an extreme strain on household finances [User Query].

When aggregated, the NBRC’s own reporting estimates that the bottom-line cost increase for the largest cohort of ratepayers—owner-occupiers of residential properties—will be approximately 22%. This translates to an additional annual cost of $818.74, or $31.49 per fortnight.² This single-year increase for an average residence is more than double the total annual waste management charge in a neighbouring council like Moreton Bay.⁶

Analysis of the Human Impact

The financial impact of these measures cannot be assessed in a vacuum. It must be viewed through the lens of the community it affects. The North Burnett region is officially recognised as one of the lowest socio-economic areas in Queensland, a fact the Council itself has acknowledged in its own reports.⁷ The region has a high proportion of residents on fixed incomes, including a significant number of age pensioners.

For an age pensioner with a total annual income of approximately $28,000, the minimum rates increase of around $900 represents a staggering 3.2% reduction in their entire yearly income. This is not a minor adjustment; it is a direct and substantial blow to their ability to afford basic living essentials, pushing many further below the poverty line. The decision directly contradicts the Council’s own awareness of the region’s economic vulnerability and demonstrates a profound disconnect from the lived reality of its constituents.

Furthermore, the introduction of new, higher rating categories for non-principal places of residence and other lodgings will have a severe secondary impact on the community’s most vulnerable. These increases will inevitably be passed on from landlords to tenants in the form of higher rents, exacerbating the existing housing and rental crisis.⁸ In a region already struggling with affordability, this measure will place additional, undue pressure on renters, many of whom are already facing significant financial hardship.

The combination of a flat percentage increase on a minimum rate, the abolition of the early payment discount, and the application of these measures to a community acknowledged as low-socio-economic demonstrates a failure to consider the principle of “equity and fairness” as required by the Local Government Act 2009 and its associated guidelines.⁷ This is not a sophisticated or equitable revenue strategy; it is a blunt, desperate cash grab that places the heaviest burden on those least able to bear it.

A Comparative Benchmark: An Exorbitant Outlier

To determine whether the NBRC’s rate increase is reasonable, it must be benchmarked against the actions of its peers. A comparative analysis of rate increases across other Queensland regional councils for the same budget cycle reveals that the NBRC’s 25% minimum general rate hike is a dramatic and alarming outlier. This data provides objective, compelling evidence to support the ratepayers’ assertion that the increase is “exorbitant in the extreme”.⁷ It is not a matter of subjective feeling; it is a matter of statistical fact. The NBRC’s increase is four to seven times higher than that of its regional peers, a disparity that cannot be explained by general economic conditions alone and points directly to severe, localised financial mismanagement and structural funding inequities.

The following table starkly illustrates this disparity. While other councils facing similar inflationary pressures have employed a range of tools to moderate the impact on their communities—such as lower overall increases, retaining discounts, or implementing rate caps—NBRC has chosen to impose the full, unmitigated burden on its ratepayers.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of 2025-26 Rate Increases Across Queensland Regional Councils

Council Name	Financial Year	Average General Rate Increase (%)	Key Mitigation Tools Used	Source(s)
North Burnett Regional Council	2025-2026	25.0% (Minimum General Rate)	None. Early payment discount abolished.	1
Western Downs Regional Council	2025-2026	3.5%	Low flat increase, 5% early payment discount retained.	4
Gladstone Regional Council	2025-2026	4.0%	Modest increase.	10
Isaac Regional Council	2025-2026	4.95%	Early payment discounts retained.	8
Logan City Council	2025-2026	6.42% (Bottom-line)	Pensioner concessions increased.	12
Bundaberg Regional Council	2025-2026	6.49% (Residential)	New rating categories introduced to improve equity.	13
Noosa Shire Council	2025-2026	6.7% (Total)	5% early payment discount retained.	3
Toowoomba Regional Council	2025-2026	9.5% (Urban Residential)	5% early payment discount retained.	15
Sunshine Coast Council	2025-2026	$2.10/week (Min. General Rate)	Levies frozen or reduced, pensioner concessions increased.	16
Moreton Bay City Council	2025-2026	$0.87/week (Min. General Rate)	15% rate cap for eligible residential properties.	6
Townsville City Council	2025-2026	Varies (Reduced Rate-in-the-Dollar)	Reduced the ‘rate in the dollar’ to offset valuation rises.	18

Section 1.2: A Decade of Decline: Deconstructing NBRC’s Financial Performance (2018-2025)

The North Burnett Regional Council has publicly justified its extreme revenue measures as a necessary response to a dire and deteriorating financial position, pointing to significant and unavoidable increases in its operational costs.¹ While external cost pressures are real and affect all local governments, this justification warrants intense scrutiny. An analysis of the Council’s own audited financial statements over the past decade reveals that the current crisis is not an acute emergency caused by recent inflation, but the predictable culmination of a long-term, systemic failure of financial governance. The Council’s deficit is not a new phenomenon but a chronic condition spanning at least nine consecutive years, indicating an internal and long-standing inability to achieve the financial sustainability mandated by the

Local Government Act 2009.⁷

Trend Analysis of Key Financial Sustainability Indicators

The story of NBRC’s financial decline is written clearly in its own annual reports. The key indicators of financial health, which the Council is required to report and which are audited by the Queensland Audit Office, paint an unambiguous picture of a council operating beyond its means for a protracted period.

• Operating Surplus Ratio: This is arguably the most critical measure of a council’s day-to-day financial health. It shows whether recurrent revenues (like rates and fees) are sufficient to cover recurrent expenses (like wages, materials, and depreciation). A positive ratio indicates a surplus that can be used for new capital projects or to pay down debt, while a negative ratio indicates a deficit that must be funded by other means, such as selling assets, taking on debt, or depleting cash reserves. NBRC’s performance against this measure has been consistently and catastrophically poor.

• FY 2018-19: -20.77%
• FY 2019-20: -15.23%
• FY 2020-21: -31.80%
• FY 2021-22: -11.83%
• FY 2022-23: -12.60%
• FY 2023-24: -67.53%

The target for this ratio is typically between 0% and 10%.[1, 1] NBRC has not come close to achieving this target in any of the past six audited years. The narrative that recent cost pressures are the primary cause of the current situation is invalidated by this data; the Council has been operating in a deep structural deficit for the better part of a decade. The dramatic worsening of the ratio in FY24 will be explained in detail in Section 1.6, as it relates to a critical accounting decision regarding grant funding.

• Net Result: The bottom-line net result confirms the story told by the operating surplus ratio. The Council has consistently recorded multi-million dollar operating deficits.

• FY 2018-19: ($4.27 million) ⁷
• FY 2019-20: ($6.89 million) ⁷
• FY 2020-21: ($8.71 million) ⁷
• FY 2021-22: $2.84 million (This reported net profit is highly misleading. It was achieved only through the inclusion of over $10 million in capital grants. The underlying operating result, before capital items, was still a significant deficit.) ⁷
• FY 2022-23: ($2.19 million) ⁷
• FY 2023-24: ($12.42 million) ⁷
• Cash Reserves and Borrowing Levels: At first glance, the Council’s cash position has appeared relatively stable over the years, and its borrowing levels have remained low and have been consistently paid down. The Council may attempt to present this as evidence of prudent financial management. However, a deeper analysis reveals a more troubling picture. The cash reserves have often been bolstered by holding large amounts of unspent capital grants and advance payments from other tiers of government, rather than by generating operational surpluses. The low level of borrowing is not a sign of prudence, but rather a symptom of an inability to fund necessary capital works for asset renewal, a fact starkly evidenced by the Council’s poor performance on its Asset Sustainability Ratio. A council that cannot afford to borrow for critical infrastructure is not being prudent; it is allowing its community’s assets to decay.

The evidence is irrefutable. The financial crisis facing the North Burnett Regional Council is chronic, not acute. The decision to impose a 25% rate increase is not an emergency response to recent market forces, but the inevitable and predictable consequence of years of failing to address a structural deficit. Ratepayers are now being asked to pay for a decade of financial mismanagement in a single, painful instalment.

Table 2: NBRC Financial Sustainability Ratios: A Six-Year Trend Analysis (FY2019-FY2024)

Financial Sustainability Indicator	FY 2019	FY 2020	FY 2021	FY 2022	FY 2023	FY 2024	Target
Operating Surplus Ratio (%)	-20.77%	-15.23%	-31.80%	-11.83%	-12.60%	-67.53%	> -2% to 0%
Asset Sustainability Ratio (%)	N/A	72.43%	97.34%	102.65%	93.04%	67.55%	> 90%
Net Financial Liabilities Ratio (%)	N/A	-32.10%	-26.17%	-29.45%	-30.93%	N/A	< 60%
Net Result ($M)	($4.27M)	($6.89M)	($8.71M)	$2.84M	($2.19M)	($12.42M)	> $0

Sources:. Note: Targets can vary slightly year-to-year based on the Financial Management (Sustainability) Guideline.

Section 1.3: The Anatomy of Mismanagement: Operational Inefficiencies and Governance Lapses

The persistent financial decline detailed in the previous section is not an abstract phenomenon. It is the direct result of specific, documented failures in the Council’s operational practices and governance structures. The evidence, again drawn from the Council’s own reports, demonstrates that the organisation has been hampered by fundamental weaknesses in its ability to plan, manage, and oversee its own affairs. These are not minor administrative issues; they are core deficiencies that have compounded over years to create the current financial crisis.

Evidence of Operational Inefficiency

A financially sustainable council is an efficient one. It plans its work, manages its assets prudently, and delivers projects on time and on budget. NBRC’s records reveal significant shortcomings in these fundamental areas.

• Pervasive Project Delays and Deferrals: The Council’s Quarterly Progress Report for Q3 FY25 is replete with examples of projects falling behind schedule. The CEO’s summary notes that several operational plan items are now “behind schedule due to resourcing constraints cited as the main reason… and continuing challenges with recruiting staff for specific technical positions”.⁷ Furthermore, 11 “other” projects had their budgets deferred or removed entirely, and numerous other projects were put on hold or delayed.⁷ This pattern of delay and deferral points to systemic issues in project management, workforce planning, and procurement, all of which contribute to inefficiency and increased costs over time.
• Admitted Lack of Asset Management Maturity: In a striking admission, the FY25 Q3 report states that the Council suffers from “Low asset management maturity, outdated plans, and lack of investment plans,” which makes it “challenging to understand implications of decisions and ensure future service delivery”.⁷ This is a direct confession of a root cause of the Council’s financial unsustainability. Without mature asset management, a council cannot accurately predict when assets will need renewal, cannot budget for that renewal over the long term, and is constantly forced into expensive, reactive maintenance instead of planned, cost-effective capital works.
• Failure to Modernise Core Financial Systems: A critical element of managing a complex organisation with over $1 billion in assets and an annual turnover exceeding $45 million is a modern Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. Such systems are fundamental for accurate financial oversight, asset management, and long-term planning. The Council’s implementation of an up-to-date ERP system has been delayed. This failure to modernise its core operational software directly contributes to the admitted “low asset management maturity” and creates significant risks.⁷ Without an integrated system, it is exceptionally difficult for the Council to accurately track its liabilities from year to year or to forecast its depreciation schedules with the precision required for sustainable financial planning. This systemic weakness means that financial decisions are being made with incomplete or outdated data, further compounding the cycle of deficits and reactive budgeting.
• Failure to Leverage Community Resources: The Council has failed to explore low-cost, high-value opportunities to enhance services by partnering with its own community. It has been noted that areas such as marketing the region for tourism and attracting new residents are underutilised due to funding and time constraints. A proactive council would seek to establish supervised volunteer programs to tap into the skills of experienced and passionate residents in these fields. This approach, which does not encroach on the roles of paid employees, could provide significant benefits at minimal cost. The failure to pursue such partnerships suggests a lack of creative problem-solving and an over-reliance on traditional, high-cost service delivery models.
• Chronic Underinvestment in Asset Renewal: The “low asset management maturity” is quantified in the Council’s consistently poor performance on the Asset Sustainability Ratio. This ratio measures the extent to which a council is replacing its assets as they wear out. The target is typically above 90%.⁷ NBRC’s performance has been erratic and often well below this benchmark, for example, 72.43% in FY20 and a particularly poor 67.55% in FY24. This proves that the Council is not spending enough on renewing its existing assets, such as roads, bridges, and water pipes. This creates a dangerous “bow wave” of deferred expenditure, where the cost of catching up on neglected maintenance and renewal grows larger and more urgent each year. The 2025-26 rate hike is, in large part, this bow wave crashing down on the community.
• Catastrophic Asset Devaluation: The most alarming piece of evidence of historical mismanagement is found in the 2021-22 Annual Report. In that year, the Council recorded a staggering revaluation decrement (a decrease in value) of its “road, bridges and drainage asset class” amounting to $266.7 million.⁷ The reason given was a “change in valuation methodology and change in estimates in the valuation for 2022”.⁷ While presented as a technical adjustment, the sheer scale of this write-down is extraordinary. It strongly suggests that for years prior, the Council’s most significant assets were grossly overvalued on its books. This would have had the effect of understating the true annual depreciation expense required, artificially flattering the Council’s operating results and masking the true, deteriorating condition of its infrastructure and the scale of the financial challenge it was facing.

Evidence of Governance Lapses

Robust governance and independent oversight are essential to ensure a council remains financially accountable. During a critical period of its financial decline, NBRC’s governance framework was demonstrably weakened.

• Disabling of the Audit and Risk Committee: The Audit and Risk Committee is a council’s primary independent oversight body, responsible for scrutinizing financial reports, risk management processes, and internal controls. In a highly questionable move, the NBRC resolved to disable its Audit and Risk Committee on 25 November 2020.⁷ It did not resolve to reinstate the committee until 28 September 2022, and the new committee was not fully formed with appointed councillors until August 2023.⁷ This means that for a period of almost two years, during which its financial position was continuing to deteriorate, the Council operated without this critical layer of independent governance and financial oversight. This is a profound governance failure.
• Failure to Employ Standard Financial Mitigation Tools: As demonstrated in Table 1, responsible councils across Queensland use a variety of sophisticated rating tools to manage the impact of rate rises on their communities. These include rate capping (as used by Moreton Bay), which limits the maximum percentage increase for any individual property, and adjusting the ‘rate in the dollar’ downwards to offset sharp increases in land valuations (as used by Townsville).⁶ NBRC has failed to implement these standard, equitable tools, opting instead for a blunt, across-the-board increase. This suggests a lack of strategic financial planning and a failure to learn from the best practices of its peers.

The current financial crisis is not an accident or the result of unavoidable external forces. It is the direct and predictable outcome of a systemic breakdown in the Council’s ability to plan its work, manage its assets, and govern its own affairs. The proposed 25% rate increase is not a solution to this breakdown; it is a symptom of a deeper institutional malaise for which ratepayers are now being asked to pay the price.

Section 1.4: Failure to Leverage State Support: The Queensland Government Sustainability Framework

The Queensland Government, through the Department of Local Government, has established a comprehensive Local Government Sustainability Framework designed specifically to support councils, monitor their performance, and provide tools to ensure their long-term viability.²⁶ This framework is not merely a set of guidelines; it is an active support system intended to help councils navigate the exact kind of financial challenges the NBRC is facing. It explicitly provides for state-level support through policy, monitoring, funding, capability building, and advocacy.²⁶

A critical question for North Burnett ratepayers is: why has the Council not publicly demonstrated that it has exhausted all avenues of support under this framework before imposing such an extreme and unaffordable burden on its community?
The framework is designed to be a partnership. It acknowledges that sustainability is about more than just finances and includes factors like governance, asset management, and the operating environment.²⁶ 

The Financial Management (Sustainability) Guideline 2023, a key component of this framework, provides tailored benchmarks and ratios for different tiers of councils, recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach is not effective.²⁷

Given the NBRC’s nine-year history of operating deficits and its clear struggles with asset management, it is precisely the type of council the Sustainability Framework was designed to assist. The framework offers a formal channel for the Council to seek assistance from the State Government, whether in the form of targeted funding, support for advocacy efforts, or guidance on improving its financial and asset management practices.²⁶

The Council’s decision to proceed directly to a 25% rate increase, without first engaging in a transparent and robust process of seeking assistance through the state’s established framework, represents a significant failure of due process. It suggests a reactive, rather than strategic, approach to its financial crisis. Ratepayers have a right to expect that their Council will explore every available support mechanism before resorting to measures that place such a severe strain on the household budgets of its community.

Section 1.5: An Inequitable Burden: The Regional Road Network

While the Council’s history of financial mismanagement provides critical context, it is not the sole cause of the current crisis. A significant and often-overlooked factor is the immense and disproportionate burden placed on the Council by its vast road network. This structural issue, rooted in the state’s funding models, creates a fundamental inequity that makes financial sustainability almost impossible to achieve without either massive rate hikes or a significant increase in state support [User Query].

The North Burnett region is responsible for maintaining a road network of 4,204 kilometres.⁷ Of this, approximately 80% is unsealed, which requires intensive and costly ongoing ongoing maintenance. This network represents a significant portion of the Council’s total expenditure, consuming around 25% of the annual budget.

The sheer scale of this responsibility becomes clear when compared to the state-wide context. Queensland’s 77 local governments collectively manage over 150,000 kilometres of roads.¹⁹ The North Burnett, with a small population of just 10,068 people, is responsible for maintaining nearly 3% of this total local road network.⁷ This means a tiny fraction of Queensland’s population of the states population around 0.0012% is shouldering an enormous share of the state’s local infrastructure burden.

This disparity highlights a critical flaw in the state and federal funding models for local government roads, such as the Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme (TIDS) and the Roads to Recovery Program.²⁰ These programs, while beneficial, often fail to adequately account for the unique challenges faced by sparsely populated councils with large geographical areas and extensive, low-traffic road networks. Funding formulas that rely heavily on population or traffic counts inherently disadvantage regions like the North Burnett, where the cost of maintaining essential access roads is high, but the ratepayer base to fund it is small.

The Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) has repeatedly advocated for an end to this “broken, outdated funding model,” arguing that councils cannot continue to be stretched to provide so much with so little.²³ The LGAQ notes that councils maintain 153,000 km of local roads with just 3 cents in every dollar of taxation.²³

This structural inequity forces the NBRC into an impossible position. It is legally responsible for maintaining its road network to a safe standard, but it lacks the rate base and the adequate state support to do so sustainably.²⁴ The 25% rate increase, therefore, can be seen not just as a measure to cover a deficit, but as an attempt to fund a state-level infrastructure responsibility from a local-level budget. This reframes the debate from one solely about Council mismanagement to one about state-level responsibility and funding fairness.

Section 1.6: The Tipping Point: The Misuse of Advance Grant Funding

While the long-term history of mismanagement and the structural road funding issue provide the context, a specific set of actions taken by the Council between 2023 and 2025 provides the single most compelling piece of evidence of financial desperation and poor practice. The Council’s handling of the Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grant (FAG) demonstrates a pattern of using the timing of grant payments to obscure the true state of its structural deficit. This practice is the antithesis of the principles of sustainable financial management and reveals that the Council effectively engineered its own justification for the extreme 2025-26 rate hike.

Analysis of the Financial Assistance Grant (FAG) Manoeuvre

The FAG is a significant, untied grant provided annually by the Commonwealth Government to all local councils, typically paid in quarterly instalments through the State Government. For many years, it was common practice for the first two quarterly payments for an upcoming financial year to be paid in advance in June of the preceding year. This practice has become less consistent, creating volatility for councils. NBRC’s financial reporting reveals a complete dependency on the timing of these payments to manage its public image and its budget.

• The FY24 Deficit Explanation: In the 2023-24 Annual Report, the CEO, Craig Matheson, explicitly states that the year’s poor financial result was significantly and negatively impacted by a decision of the Queensland Government to delay the payment of the annual FAG. The payment, which was budgeted for receipt in June 2024, was not received until 2 July 2024. This single decision, according to the CEO, caused a “$10.11 million erosion in our operating result for the 2023-24 period”.⁷ This created an artificially large deficit for that year, as revenue expected in FY24 was pushed into FY25.
• The FY25 Deficit Obscuration: In a stunning reversal of circumstances, the Council’s public statements justifying the 2025-26 budget reveal the opposite manoeuvre. The Council states that its estimated operating deficit for 2024-25 is “$4.207 million,” a figure it presents as an improvement on the original forecast. However, it immediately admits that “this is only due to the unexpected receipt on June 25, 2025 of a 50 per cent advance payment of the 2025-2026 Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grant”.¹ The statement goes on to clarify that without this advance payment of
  next year’s revenue, the true operating deficit for 2024-25 would have been $10.648 million.¹

These two events, occurring in back-to-back financial years, are profoundly revealing. They demonstrate that the Council’s reported bottom line is not a reflection of its operational performance but is instead subject to the whim of grant payment timing. More critically, the decision to use the FY26 advance payment to plug the FY25 deficit shows a council in a state of financial crisis, resorting to unsustainable accounting manoeuvres.

Argument of Legislative and Principled Breach

This practice of using future-year revenue to cover a current-year operating deficit is the very definition of unsustainable financial management. It is a direct contradiction of the core principles that are meant to govern local government in Queensland.

• Breach of the Local Government Act 2009: Section 4(2)(c) of the Act requires “sound financial management” as a core principle of local government.⁷ Pulling revenue from a future year to make the current year’s deficit appear smaller is demonstrably unsound. It is a short-term fix that guarantees a larger problem in the immediate future. The Act also requires a focus on “long-term and cumulative effects of decisions”.⁷ The Council’s decision had a direct, predictable, and catastrophic long-term effect: it created a massive, immediate shortfall for the 2025-26 budget cycle, making an extreme rate hike a near certainty.
• A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: The Council effectively engineered its own justification for the 25% rate hike. By accepting the advance FAG payment, it artificially reduced the reported FY25 deficit from a politically unpalatable $10.6 million to a more manageable-looking $4.2 million.¹ This action, however, simultaneously blew a multi-million-dollar hole in the starting position for the FY26 budget. This allowed the Council to frame the subsequent 25% rate hike as an unavoidable and necessary response to the immense pressures of the FY26 budget, while obscuring the fact that those pressures were significantly exacerbated by its own accounting decision just days before the new financial year began.

This is not prudent management; it is a financial shell game. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of transparency and a failure to manage finances sustainably over the long term, which is a core statutory duty of the Council. The community is not being asked to respond to an unforeseen crisis; they are being asked to bail out a crisis of the Council’s own making.

Part 2: A Strategic Framework for Action

Confronted with the North Burnett Regional Council’s unprecedented and inequitable rate increase, a passive response is not an option. An effective challenge requires a coordinated, evidence-based, and persistent campaign. This section of the report provides a clear, step-by-step strategic framework for the community to channel its efforts. The approach is designed to maximize political pressure, leverage formal administrative processes, and build a powerful, unified voice for the ratepayers of the North Burnett.

Section 2.1: The Dual-Stream Strategy: Political Persuasion and Formal Challenge

The avenues for directly reversing a council’s budget decision are limited due to the broad autonomy afforded to local governments in Queensland.⁷ However, the NBRC’s case presents unique vulnerabilities that can be exploited through a carefully executed dual-stream strategy. This strategy involves pursuing two distinct but parallel paths of action simultaneously.

• Stream One (The “Court of Public Opinion”): A Community and Political Campaign. This is the primary and most immediate path to a resolution. The objective of this stream is to build overwhelming public and political pressure on the elected Mayor and Councillors to voluntarily reconsider their decision. Councillors are political representatives who are ultimately accountable to their voters. A well-organized, highly visible, and evidence-based public campaign can make the political cost of maintaining the 25% rate hike untenable. This stream focuses on direct engagement, media exposure, and community mobilization to persuade the Council to call a special meeting to review and amend the 2025-26 budget. It is the fastest potential path to a successful outcome.
• Stream Two (The “Formal Process”): An Administrative and Governance Challenge. This stream runs in parallel to the public campaign and serves as a critical source of leverage and a fallback position. The objective of this stream is to lodge formal complaints and submissions with external oversight bodies, challenging the legality, administrative fairness, and procedural integrity of the Council’s actions. While bodies like the Queensland Ombudsman or the Minister for Local Government may be reluctant to intervene in the specific quantum of a rate rise, they have a clear mandate to investigate failures in process, governance, and adherence to statutory principles. By formally documenting the Council’s history of mismanagement, its failure to secure adequate state funding for its road network, and its questionable use of grant funding, this stream puts the Council’s conduct on the official record and invites scrutiny from higher authorities. This formal process adds significant weight to the political campaign and ensures that even if the Council initially refuses to bend to public pressure, it will still be held to account.

By pursuing both streams concurrently, the community action group creates a pincer movement. The public campaign makes the issue politically painful for the Councillors, while the formal challenge questions their competence and legal compliance, creating a powerful incentive for them to seek a compromise and demonstrate responsible governance.

Section 2.2: Stream One – The Community and Political Campaign

This stream is about direct action and persuasion. Its success hinges on organization, a unified message, and relentless communication.

• Step 1: Formalise and Empower the Ratepayers’ Association.
  A loose collection of concerned citizens is easily dismissed. A formal association with a clear name (e.g., “North Burnett Ratepayers Alliance”), an elected spokesperson, and a simple communication structure (e.g., a core committee, a Facebook group, an email list) presents a unified and credible front. This structure is essential for coordinating actions, managing media enquiries, and ensuring a consistent message. The first task is to formally establish this group and designate a primary spokesperson who can confidently and articulately represent the community’s case.
• Step 2: Direct Lobbying of Mayor and Councillors.
  The campaign’s primary targets are the seven individuals who voted for the budget: the Mayor and the six Councillors. The association must formally request an urgent meeting with the full Council. This request should be made in writing to the CEO and the Mayor.
  The agenda for this meeting is critical. It is not a forum for venting anger, but for the strategic presentation of evidence. The spokesperson, armed with a summary of this report, should focus on five key points:

1. Present the Comparative Evidence: Show the Councillors Table 1 from this report, demonstrating that their decision makes NBRC an extreme outlier compared to every other regional council in Queensland.
2. Present the Roads Funding Inequity: Clearly articulate the argument from Section 1.5, showing how the massive, underfunded road network places an impossible burden on a small ratepayer base.
3. Present the Evidence of Mismanagement: Briefly summarise the decade of operating deficits, the poor asset management, the disabling of the Audit Committee, and the failure to implement a modern ERP system. Frame the rate hike as the result of these failures, not just external inflation.
4. Question the Lack of State Engagement: Ask why the Council did not publicly engage with the Queensland Government’s Sustainability Framework to seek assistance before imposing this rate hike on the community.
5. Highlight the Human Impact: Share anonymized but powerful stories of the impact on local pensioners and the flow-on effects to renters, directly linking the decision to increased hardship in a community they were elected to serve.
6. Make a Specific, Actionable Request: The meeting must conclude with a clear and direct “ask.” The question should be: “Given this evidence of the extreme and inequitable nature of this rate rise, the structural funding problems, and the history of financial mismanagement, will the Council commit to holding a special meeting to review the 2025-26 budget and make a public commitment to aggressively advocate to the State Government for a fairer funding deal under the state’s own Sustainability Framework?”
   Getting a clear “yes” or “no” to this question is the primary goal of the meeting.

• Step 3: Coordinated Media and Public Awareness Campaign.
  This step runs in parallel with direct lobbying and amplifies its impact. The public meeting already planned is the perfect launchpad [User Query].

• Media Engagement: Use the professionally drafted Media Release (Part 3.1) and Key Talking Points (Part 3.2) provided in this report. Distribute them to all relevant media outlets—local newspapers (e.g., Central and North Burnett Times), regional television news (WIN, 7News, ABC), and local radio—ahead of the public meeting. The spokesperson must be prepared and available for interviews.
• Sustained Public Pressure: The campaign cannot be a one-day event. It must be a sustained effort. This includes a coordinated letter-to-the-editor campaign, with different community members writing each week. It also involves leveraging social media to share key facts, simple infographics based on the tables in this report, and short video testimonials from affected residents, especially pensioners and small business owners. The goal is to ensure the issue remains at the top of the local news agenda.
• Step 4: Engage State and Federal Members of Parliament.
  The local State Member of Parliament and the Federal Member for Flynn have a vested interest in the well-being of their constituents. The ratepayers’ association should schedule meetings to brief them on the situation, providing them with a copy of this report. The “ask” for these elected representatives is not for them to simply make representations, but to actively champion the cause of a fairer road funding model for rural Queensland councils. Their role is to amplify the community’s voice at a state and federal level, highlighting how the current funding arrangements are forcing councils like NBRC into financial crisis.

Section 2.3: Stream Two – The Formal Administrative and Legal Challenge

This stream establishes the formal, procedural basis for the campaign and creates a paper trail of evidence.

• Step 1: Formal Letter to the NBRC Chief Executive Officer.
  The first formal action is to send a letter to the Council’s CEO. A draft is provided in Part 3.3 of this report. This letter serves a critical purpose: it puts the Council on official notice of the community’s objections and establishes a formal record of the complaint. It focuses on the Council’s apparent failure to exhaust all other options—including seeking state support under the Sustainability Framework and pursuing more robust advocacy for road funding—before resorting to such a punitive rate hike. This step is a necessary precursor to any potential complaint to the Ombudsman.
• Step 2: Formal Submission to the Minister for Local Government.
  The ratepayers’ association should prepare a formal submission to the Queensland Minister for Local Government. This report should form the core of that submission. The argument to the Minister is that the NBRC may be in breach of its statutory obligations under the Local Government Act 2009, specifically the principles of:

• Sound financial management (s4(2)(c)), evidenced by the chronic deficits, the misuse of advance grant funding, and the failure to implement a modern ERP system.⁷
• Ethical and legal behaviour (s4(2)(d)), questioned by the decision to disable the Audit and Risk Committee.⁷
• Decision-making in the public interest (s4(2)(a)), which has been undermined by imposing a regressive rate structure on a low-socio-economic community without first demonstrating that all other avenues, including seeking support under the state’s Sustainability Framework, have been exhausted.⁷
  
  The submission should specifically request that the Minister, under their powers in the Act, investigate the Council’s financial management practices and its adherence to the sustainability principles, with a particular focus on the inequitable state funding model for local roads.
• Step 3: Complaint to the Queensland Ombudsman.
  The Queensland Ombudsman’s office typically does not investigate the merits of a council’s policy decision, such as the amount of a rate increase. However, it can and does investigate complaints about administrative process failure. The complaint should be carefully framed to focus on these procedural aspects:

• The unreasonableness of the administrative action: Argue that a 25% increase, which is 4-7 times higher than any peer council, is so disproportionate as to be administratively unreasonable.
• The causal link between administrative action and unfair outcome: Argue that the Council’s administrative decision to use the FY26 FAG advance to mask the FY25 deficit led directly to an unfair, inequitable, and administratively flawed budget outcome for ratepayers in the following year.
• Failure to demonstrate due diligence: Argue that the Council’s decision to impose the full cost burden on ratepayers without first exhausting all advocacy avenues for fairer state funding and without seeking support under the Queensland Government’s own Sustainability Framework is an unreasonable administrative action.
• Failure to maintain adequate systems: Argue that the delay in implementing a modern Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system represents a significant administrative failure, preventing the Council from accurately forecasting liabilities and depreciation for its billion-dollar asset portfolio and contributing directly to the financial crisis [User Query].

Section 2.4: Proposed Timeline and Action Plan

Momentum is critical. This integrated action plan provides a week-by-week schedule for the first 60 days of the campaign, coordinating actions from both streams to maximize pressure and ensure a disciplined, strategic approach.

Table 3: Integrated Action Plan & Timeline (First 60 Days)

Week(s)	Stream One: Political & Community Campaign	Stream Two: Formal Administrative Challenge	Key Objective
1 – 2	• Formalise North Burnett Ratepayers Alliance.• Elect spokesperson.• Prepare media packs using this report.• Announce public meeting.	• Finalise and send formal Letter to CEO (Part 3.3) with a response deadline of 27 July 2025.• Begin drafting submission to the Minister based on this report.	Mobilisation & Formal Notice: Establish the group, put Council on notice with a firm deadline, and prepare for public launch.
3 – 4	• Hold public meeting with media in attendance.• Distribute Media Release (Part 3.1).• Spokesperson conducts media interviews using Talking Points (Part 3.2).• Launch social media campaign with key facts and infographics.• Formally request meeting with Mayor and Councillors.	• Lodge formal submission with the Minister for Local Government.• Follow up on receipt of letter by CEO’s office.	Public Launch & Escalation: Generate significant media attention focusing on the inequitable road funding burden and formally escalate the issue to the State Government.
5 – 6	• Brief local State and Federal MPs, requesting they make representations to the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Transport.• Begin sustained letter-to-the-editor campaign.• Follow up on meeting request with Council.	• Based on CEO’s response (or lack thereof), lodge formal complaint with the Queensland Ombudsman focusing on administrative process failure.	Broaden Political Pressure: Engage all levels of representation and initiate the independent administrative review process.
7 – 8	• Assess Council’s response to meeting request and public pressure.• Plan next phase of public action (e.g., peaceful protest at Council chambers, petition).• Intensify media campaign with personal stories from affected pensioners and renters.	• Follow up with the Minister’s office regarding the submission.• Provide any additional information requested by the Ombudsman.	Sustain Momentum & Assess Next Steps: Evaluate the initial impact of the campaign and plan for a sustained effort based on Council’s reaction.

Part 3: Campaign and Communication Materials

This section provides ready-to-use documents designed to support the strategic framework outlined in Part 2. These materials are crafted to ensure a professional, consistent, and powerful message is delivered across all campaign platforms.

Section 3.1: Media Release for Public Meeting

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

State Funding Failure Forces ‘Punitive’ 25% Rate Hike on North Burnett, Say Ratepayers

NORTH BURNETT, QLD – Residents of the North Burnett are mobilizing to fight a “punitive and unsustainable” minimum 25% rate hike, arguing the increase is a direct result of a broken state funding model for local roads that has pushed their council into financial crisis. A public meeting has been called to organize a region-wide campaign to demand action from both the North Burnett Regional Council (NBRC) and the Queensland Government.

The NBRC’s 2025-26 budget imposes a 25% increase on the minimum general rate, a 19% rise on most other charges, and abolishes the 5% early payment discount.¹ For many residents, particularly pensioners on fixed incomes, this will mean an increase of nearly $900 per year. The increase will also hit renters hard as new charges on investment properties are passed on, worsening the local housing crisis [User Query].

, spokesperson for the newly formed North Burnett Ratepayers Alliance, said the community was being asked to shoulder a burden that was not of its making.

“Our council is responsible for 4,204 kilometres of roads, 80% of which are unsealed. This costs 25% of our entire budget,” said.⁷ “We are a community of just 10,000 people being asked to fund a road network that is a state-level responsibility. This isn’t just a council issue; it’s a state funding failure.”

While other councils across Queensland are implementing modest increases of 3-6%, North Burnett’s is up to seven times higher.³ The Ratepayers Alliance argues this is not just due to inflation, but to the impossible task of maintaining a vast, underfunded road network.

“We are calling on the Mayor and Councillors to hold a special meeting, review this unfair budget, and make a public commitment to fight for a fairer road funding deal from the State Government,” said. “Before hitting pensioners and renters with a 25% hike, Council should have exhausted every option, including seeking help under the State’s own Sustainability Framework. We are calling on our State MPs and the Minister for Local Government to step in and fix this broken system before it pushes our community to the brink.”

Section 3.2: Key Talking Points for Media Engagement

These are concise, powerful, and memorable soundbites designed for television, radio, or print interviews. The spokesperson should practice delivering them clearly and confidently.

1. On the Core Issue: “This 25% rate hike is a direct result of a broken state funding model. We are a small community of 10,000 people being forced to pay for a massive 4,204-kilometre road network that the state is not adequately funding.”
2. On the Comparison with Other Councils: “While other councils are raising rates by 3-6%, ours is 25%. This isn’t because our council is seven times less efficient; it’s because our infrastructure burden is unfairly large and underfunded by the state.”
3. On the Roads Burden (The Numbers): “Let’s be clear: we have 4,204 kilometres of roads, 80% of them unsealed. This eats up a quarter of our entire budget. It’s an impossible task for a community of our size and it’s time the State Government paid its fair share.”
4. On Internal Mismanagement: “This isn’t just about external pressures. Council has delayed implementing a modern financial management system—an ERP—needed to properly manage its billion-dollar asset portfolio. How can they accurately forecast for the future when they aren’t using the basic tools for the job?”
5. On State Government Support: “The State Government has a Sustainability Framework to help struggling councils. Why didn’t our Council use it to ask for help before hitting residents with a 25% rate hike? They’ve put the cart before the horse.”
6. On the Human Impact (Renters): “This budget doesn’t just hurt homeowners. New charges on investment properties will be passed directly to renters, making the housing crisis in our region even worse. It’s punishing our most vulnerable.”
7. On the Human Impact (Pensioners): “For a pensioner on $28,000 a year, this is a $900 cut to their income. It means choosing between paying rates or affording essentials. This is the real-world consequence of the State’s funding failure.”
8. The “Ask” for Council: “We are asking the Mayor and Councillors to review this budget and, more importantly, to become our fiercest advocates. They must publicly and aggressively fight for a fair road funding deal from the State Government.”
9. The “Ask” for the State Government: “We are calling on the State Government to urgently review its road funding models like TIDS. Rural communities like ours cannot be expected to subsidise the state’s transport network any longer.”

Section 3.3: Draft Letter to the NBRC Chief Executive Officer

Mr. Craig Matheson

Chief Executive Officer

North Burnett Regional Council

PO Box 390

GAYNDAH QLD 4625

By Email: admin@northburnett.qld.gov.au

SUBJECT: Formal Objection to the 2025-26 Rating Resolution and Urgent Request for Information and Special Meeting

Dear Mr. Matheson,

On behalf of the, this letter serves as a formal objection to the rating structure and associated revenue measures adopted by the North Burnett Regional Council as part of its 2025-26 Budget.

We formally state our opposition to the budget’s rating resolution on the grounds that it is inequitable, unsustainable, and imposes an unreasonable and unaffordable financial burden on the community, particularly on vulnerable residents, pensioners, and renters.

We contend that the decision to impose a minimum 25% rate increase—an extreme outlier compared to any other council in Queensland—places an unfair burden on ratepayers without first demonstrating that all other strategic options have been exhausted. We specifically request that the Council provide the community with a detailed account of the following:

1. Engagement with the State Sustainability Framework: What specific actions has the Council taken to engage with the Queensland Government’s Local Government Sustainability Framework to seek assistance, funding, or advocacy support prior to the adoption of the 2025-26 budget? [User Query]
2. Advocacy on Road Funding: What specific advocacy efforts has the Council undertaken with the Queensland Government to secure a more equitable and sustainable funding arrangement for our local road network, which consumes a disproportionate 25% of the annual budget? [User Query]
3. Consideration of Community Resources: Has the Council considered establishing supervised volunteer programs to leverage the skills of experienced residents in areas such as tourism marketing and promotion, which are acknowledged as under-resourced, as a cost-effective alternative to service reduction or extreme rate hikes? [User Query]

The community must see that its Council is fighting on its behalf and exploring all creative and collaborative solutions before it can be asked to bear such an extreme financial cost. The introduction of higher rates for non-main residences will also directly impact rental affordability, a critical issue you have not addressed [User Query].

Time is of the essence, given that rate notices are scheduled to be issued on 12th August 2025, we request a formal written response to the above questions within 7 Days of receipt.

Furthermore, we formally request that upon providing your response, you ask the Mayor and Councillors to convene a special meeting within 10 days to discuss your reply with representatives of our association and to review the 2025-26 Budget and its rating resolutions.

We look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

On behalf of the
Representative Body.

Works cited

1. Slug For North Burnett Ratepayers – southburnett.com.au, accessed July 10, 2025, https://southburnett.com.au/news2/2025/07/07/slug-for-north-burnett-ratepayers/
2. Council to vote on 25 per cent rate rise – South Burnett Today, accessed July 15, 2025, https://burnetttoday.com.au/south/2025/07/03/council-to-vote-on-25-per-cent-rate-rise/
3. Challenging 2025-26 budget delivers for Noosa community, accessed July 10, 2025, https://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/About-Council/News-and-publications/Media-releases/2025/Challenging-2025-26-budget-delivers-for-Noosa-community
4. Council Budget 2025/26, accessed July 10, 2025, https://www.wdrc.qld.gov.au/Council/Council-Budget-202526
5. TRC Locks In Large Rate Rises – southburnett.com.au, accessed July 10, 2025, https://southburnett.com.au/news2/2025/06/18/trc-locks-in-large-rate-rises/
6. About our 2025–26 Budget | Moreton Bay, accessed July 10, 2025, https://www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/1/services/budget/budget-2025-26/about-our-2025-26-budget.pdf
7. accessed January 1, 1970,
8. Isaac delivers budget to secure community futures, accessed July 10, 2025, https://www.isaac.qld.gov.au/Your-Council/News-and-media/Latest-News/Isaac-delivers-budget-to-secure-community-futures-30-June-2025
9. 2025-26 Budget boosts investment in roads, water, essential services, accessed July 10, 2025, https://www.wdrc.qld.gov.au/Council/News-Public-Updates/News/2025-26-Budget-boosts-investment-in-roads-water-and-essential-services
10. Gladstone Today | Local News and Information in Gladstone, accessed July 10, 2025, https://gladstonetoday.com.au/
11. Isaac council delivers 4.95 per cent general rates rise in $153M budget | Emerald Today, accessed July 10, 2025, https://emeraldtoday.com.au/news/03/07/2025/isaac-council-delivers-4-95-per-cent-general-rates-rise-in-153m-budget/
12. Council listens to deliver a fairer, future-focused budget for Logan, accessed July 10, 2025, https://www.logan.qld.gov.au/about-council/media-releases/2025/council-listens-to-deliver-a-fairer-future-focused-budget-for-logan
13. Rates rise 6.49 per cent as council adopts 25/26 Budget – Bundaberg Today, accessed July 10, 2025, https://bundabergtoday.com.au/news/2025/07/04/rates-rise-6-49-per-cent-as-council-adopts-25-26-budget/
14. Rating review has focus on fair – Bundaberg Now, accessed July 10, 2025, https://www.bundabergnow.com/2025/07/02/rating-review-has-focus-on-fair/
15. Annual budget 2025/26 – Toowoomba Regional Council, accessed July 10, 2025, https://www.tr.qld.gov.au/about-council/council-governance/plans-strategy-reports/16565-annual-budget-2025-26
16. Budget 2025–26 delivers for now and the future | Sunshine Coast Council, accessed July 10, 2025, https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/news/budget-2025-26-delivers-for-now-and-the-future
17. Budget positions City for growth while keeping rates low – Moreton Bay Regional Council, accessed July 10, 2025, https://www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/News/Media/Annual-Budget-2025-26
18. Council to drop Rate in the Dollar to combat state valuations – Townsville City Council, accessed July 10, 2025, https://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/about-council/news-and-publications/media-releases/2025/june/council-to-drop-rate-in-the-dollar-to-combat-state-valuations
19. Submission DR143 – Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) – Public Infrastructure – Public inquiry – Productivity Commission, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/infrastructure/submissions/submissions-test2/submission-counter/subdr143-infrastructure.pdf
20. Walking Local Government Grants (Department of Transport and Main Roads), accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/travel-and-transport/pedestrians-and-walking/walking-local-government-grants
21. Roads to Recovery Program resources, accessed July 15, 2025, https://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/resources-funding-recipients/roads-recovery-program-resources
22. Transport infrastructure funding – Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.fnqroc.qld.gov.au/files/media/original/003/a8e/97d/cc6/RA_-_TIDS_Funding_Factsheet_-_Oct_11.pdf
23. Councils call for an end to broken, outdated funding model – LGAQ, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.lgaq.asn.au/News-and-Media/Media-Releases/Councils-call-for-an-end-to-broken-outdated-funding-model
24. SLM/2013/725 Roads under the Land Act 1994, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/?a=109113%3Apolicy_registry%2Froads-under-land-act.pdf
25. COUNCIL POLICY: PROVISION OF ROAD NETWORK, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.scenicrim.qld.gov.au/downloads/file/2147/provision-of-road-network-policy
26. Local government sustainability framework, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.localgovernment.qld.gov.au/for-councils/finance/local-government-sustainability-framework
27. Local government 2023 (Report 8 – Queensland Audit Office, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.qao.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-01/Local%20government%202023%20%28Report%208%20%E2%80%93%202023%E2%80%9324%29%20%E2%80%93%20Appendix%20L.pdf
28. Financial Management (Sustainability) Guideline – State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/82384/financial-management-sustainability-guidelines.pdf