One of the most detailed responses to IPART's approval of Hawkesbury City Council's Special Rate Variation has come not from a political party or a community campaign group, but from a retired IBM Senior Consultant with decades of experience in examining organisational performance, governance systems and business accountability.
The Hawkesbury Gazette commissioned an independent review of IPART's determination from Hawkesbury ratepayer Bob Gribbin after the Tribunal's final decision approved Council's application to increase rates by 8.66 per cent per year for four years. This is now serialized in seven short articles that will be published over the next several weeks.
Mr Gribbin spent decades in business analysis and governance roles at IBM, assessing organisational performance, financial systems, project delivery and accountability frameworks across the public and private sectors for Australia's top 100 companies.
Following IPART's approval of Hawkesbury City Council's application to increase rates by 8.66 per cent per year for four years, he conducted a detailed review of the Tribunal's final determination.
His report, "Matters Raised in My Submission That IPART's Final Report Did Not Address", examines whether the issues raised by residents opposing the rate rise were fully considered in the determination process.
Importantly, the report does not argue that IPART lacked the legal authority to approve the Special Rate Variation. Rather, it questions whether key accountability issues were adequately examined before approval was granted.
Among the concerns raised are questions about the effectiveness of the previous Special Rate Variation, project delivery performance, employee cost growth, consultation processes, forecast assumptions, and the lack of independent verification of certain financial claims relied upon by Council.
One of the most significant findings identified by Mr Gribbin is that IPART acknowledged Hawkesbury City Council had failed to comply with reporting requirements attached to an earlier Special Rate Variation before approving the new application. According to the report, Council did not provide the required reporting under the conditions attached to the previous increase, a matter IPART referred to the Office of Local Government. Despite this non-compliance, the new Special Rate Variation was approved.
Mr Gribbin argues that although IPART is correct that it is not responsible for auditing councils or reviewing individual spending decisions, this effectively excluded many concerns about Council's project delivery record and previous performance from consideration. He notes that projects such as Fernadell Park, the WestInvest initiatives, the Berambing telecommunications tower, Windsor Paddlesports and aspects of the sewer scheme were acknowledged but treated as matters outside IPART's remit.
The report also highlights what Mr Gribbin regards as inconsistencies in IPART's own tables and reasoning, particularly regarding consultation outcomes and the treatment of efficiency measures proposed by Council.
While some residents support the rate increase as necessary to address Hawkesbury's infrastructure backlog, others argue that accountability for previous spending should have been demonstrated before additional funds were approved.
The debate ultimately raises a broader question that extends beyond the Hawkesbury region:
Should ratepayers be asked to contribute substantially more revenue before there is a clear public accounting of the most significant financial decisions affecting Hawkesbury households in recent years?
The Hawkesbury Gazette commissioned the review to promote informed public discussion and transparency about one of the most significant financial decisions affecting Hawkesbury households in recent years. The Gazette will publish a series of stories based on analysis of the IPART report over the next few weeks.
Download the Report
The Hawkesbury Gazette has published the full report by retired IBM Senior Consultant and Hawkesbury ratepayer Bob Gribbin.
Related story: IPART Found Hawkesbury Failed to Report on Previous Rate Rise. https://www.hawkesburygazette.com/ipart-found-hawkesbury-failed-to-report-on-previous-rate-rise/
EXPLAINER What is IPART and Why Does Council Need Its Approval to Raise Rates?
IPART is an independent NSW Government agency established in 1992. Its role is to regulate prices, review government services and provide independent oversight of matters that affect consumers and ratepayers. Among its many responsibilities, IPART regulates local government rates in New South Wales.
The purpose is to prevent councils from simply increasing rates whenever they wish and to provide an independent check on whether proposed increases are justified.
What is Rate Pegging?
Since 1977, NSW councils have operated under a system known as "rate pegging." Each year IPART sets a maximum percentage by which councils can increase their general rate income. For most councils, this annual increase is automatic and does not require a special application.
The system was introduced to protect ratepayers from large and unexpected increases while still allowing councils to keep pace with inflation and rising costs. In recent years, the annual rate peg has generally ranged between 3 and 5 per cent.
What Happens If a Council Wants More?
If a council believes the standard rate peg is insufficient, it can apply to IPART for what is known as a Special Rate Variation (SRV). A Special Rate Variation allows a council to increase rates above the normal annual limit. However, obtaining approval is not automatic.
Councils must demonstrate:
- Why additional revenue is required.
- What projects or services the money will fund.
- Why existing income and savings measures are insufficient.
- The impact on ratepayers.
- That meaningful community consultation has occurred.
IPART then independently assesses the application.
What Does IPART Look At?
When considering a Special Rate Variation application, IPART examines several factors. These include:
- The council's long-term financial position.
- Infrastructure maintenance backlogs.
- Asset management plans.
- Population growth and service demands.
- Community consultation results.
- Alternative options considered by the council.
- The affordability impacts on residents and businesses.
IPART may approve, partially approve or reject an application. Some councils have had applications refused or reduced when IPART was not satisfied the case had been made.
Why Does This Matter to Hawkesbury?
For Hawkesbury residents, the recent decision means rates will rise faster than the standard rate peg over the next four years. Council argued the increase was necessary to address road maintenance, infrastructure renewal and long-term financial sustainability.
IPART accepted that argument and approved the application in full. Importantly, IPART does not decide whether residents like the increase. Its role is to determine whether the council has demonstrated a reasonable and evidence-based need for additional revenue.
Does IPART Audit How the Money Is Spent?
Not directly. IPART's role is primarily to assess whether the increase should be approved. Once approved, councils remain accountable for delivering the projects and outcomes promised in their applications.
That accountability comes through annual reports, financial statements, council meetings, elections, the NSW Audit Office, the Office of Local Government and ongoing community scrutiny.
Who Oversees IPART?
IPART is accountable to the NSW Parliament through the responsible minister, currently the NSW Treasurer. Its annual reports, financial statements and major reviews are tabled in Parliament and can be scrutinised by parliamentary committees.
A Question Hawkesbury Residents Might Ask
An interesting public policy question arising from Hawkesbury's recent 39.4% cumulative rate increase is:
If IPART approves a rate rise based on specific promises about roads and infrastructure, who independently checks several years later whether those promises were actually delivered?
The answer is that responsibility is spread across multiple oversight mechanisms, but there is no dedicated "IPART compliance inspector" that routinely audits every SRV commitment after approval. That is one reason why annual reporting, council transparency and media scrutiny remain important.
