The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has approved Hawkesbury City Council's application to increase rates by a cumulative 39.41 per cent over four years.
But an independent review commissioned by the Hawkesbury Gazette is now asking a question that goes to the heart of the Tribunal's assessment:
Did IPART correctly interpret its own data?
The question arises from one of the key findings contained in IPART's determination.
In approving the Special Rate Variation, IPART concluded that Hawkesbury City Council had fewer staff per capita than comparable councils. This finding supported Council's argument that it was operating relatively leanly compared with similar local government authorities.
However, retired IBM Senior Consultant and business analyst Bob Gribbin argues that the figures contained within IPART's own report appear to indicate the opposite.
The Numbers
According to Mr Gribbin's analysis, Table 8.2 of the determination records that Hawkesbury City Council has one full-time equivalent employee for every 193.5 residents.
The comparator council average recorded in the same table is 1 employee per 226.1 residents.
Mr Gribbin argues that a lower residents-per-employee figure indicates more staff relative to population, not fewer.
Using that interpretation, Hawkesbury would appear to have a higher staffing ratio than the comparator average.
"The conclusion reached in the text appears inconsistent with the figures presented in the table," Mr Gribbin states in his report.
The Hawkesbury Gazette has asked IPART to clarify the apparent discrepancy.
Why Does It Matter?
On one level, the issue may seem technical. But staffing costs are among the largest expenses for local government.
Employee costs account for a substantial proportion of the Council's operating expenditure, and some residents have identified them as an important factor in the Council's long-term financial position.
If the staffing comparison influenced IPART's assessment of Council's efficiency, productivity or financial sustainability, then the accuracy of that comparison becomes important.
A mistaken interpretation of the data would not necessarily invalidate the determination, but it could raise questions about the robustness of some of the reasoning supporting the decision.
Not the Only Numerical Question
Mr Gribbin's review identifies several other areas where he believes the determination contains inconsistencies or unexplained differences in figures.
Among them are:
- Different figures reported for the projected impact of the rate rise on households.
- Variations in petition numbers cited during the consultation process.
- Questions regarding revenue assumptions and previous Special Rate Variation outcomes.
While these discrepancies may ultimately have straightforward explanations, Mr Gribbin argues that they deserve clarification given the significant financial impact the determination will have on Hawkesbury households.
Confidence in the Process
The broader issue raised by the report is not simply whether a number in a table was interpreted correctly.
It is whether the public can have confidence in a process that will result in millions of dollars of additional revenue being collected from ratepayers over the coming years.
Most residents accept that financial assessments are complex.
Mistakes can occur in large reports.
What matters is whether those mistakes are identified, corrected and explained when questions are raised.
Questions for IPART
The Hawkesbury Gazette has asked IPART:
- Does IPART stand by the conclusion that Hawkesbury City Council has fewer staff per capita than comparable councils?
- Can IPART explain how that conclusion was reached from the figures contained in Table 8.2?
- Has IPART reviewed the apparent inconsistency identified by Mr Gribbin?
- If an error exists, what impact, if any, would it have on the determination?
- What quality assurance processes are used to verify calculations and interpretations contained within Special Rate Variation determinations?
Independent Review Available
The Hawkesbury Gazette commissioned retired IBM Senior Consultant and business analyst Bob Gribbin to undertake an independent review of IPART's determination.
Mr Gribbin spent decades in senior consulting, governance and systems analysis roles with IBM, assessing organisational performance, financial systems and business transformation projects.
His report, Matters Raised in My Submission That IPART's Final Report Did Not Address, is available for download from the Hawkesbury Gazette website.
Readers are encouraged to review the report and draw their own conclusions regarding the figures, assumptions and reasoning underpinning the Special Rate Variation approval.
Readers are encouraged to review the report and draw their own conclusions regarding the assumptions, forecasts and accountability measures underpinning Hawkesbury's Special Rate Variation.
Related stories
Did IPART ask the right questions before approving the Council rate rise?
Can Council be trusted with more money?
Cost of Council staff payrise Outpace 39.41% Rate Increase.
Can Ratepayers Trust the Numbers?
Did IPART Get Its Maths Wrong?
