Hansard debates

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — The matter that I wish to raise is for the attention of the Minister for Local Government and is a serious matter, which emanates from the tabling yesterday of the Victorian Ombudsman's report, Investigation into Casey City Council's Special Charge Scheme for Market Lane. I made some comments yesterday and noted that the minister had also issued a press release announcing that she plans to appoint a monitor in two or three weeks time. The terms of reference presumably are yet to be determined. It will take 8 to 12 weeks for the monitor to do the work, which of course takes us very close to the council election period.

I was most disturbed to read the report, and I wanted an immediate briefing, so last night I actually took myself off to get the briefing. Today I received information about this particular report from the chief executive officer via the mayor. He says:

… I provide you with advice regarding the reimbursements due to special charge ratepayers as a result of the Ombudsman's investigation into the Market Lane special charge scheme.

During the course of the investigation it was identified that council was overcharging the interest administration fee by 0.5 per cent. When this was identified, council moved swiftly and on 1 September 2015 resolved to reimburse people who had been overcharged for the 2014–15 year. Council reimbursed a total of $3357 over 84 rate accounts (all special charge schemes across Casey) — an average of less than $40 per property.

A recommendation of the Ombudsman in the report tabled in Parliament yesterday is that council should consider refunding interest charged above 4.25 per cent (the rate notified to the Market Lane residents in February 2014) until 1 September 2015. The amount involved has been calculated today. All but eight of the residents have paid the special charge in full. The eight residents paying in instalments have been charged an average of $276 for interest above 4.25 per cent in the specified period — a total amount of $2204.50. Council will consider the Ombudsman's recommendation to refund this amount at its meeting on 5 July.

It is expected that indeed council will agree — of course, as per the recommendations — to refund the sum total of $2204.50.

The Ombudsman is within her rights to investigate administrative matters, which she has done. I question, however, the cost of the investigation and the publication. I believe that this could have easily been fixed, given that it was an officer's error. However, the appointment of a monitor is in my view both unfounded and an overreaction, and I will be paying very close attention to the terms of reference. Indeed I call on the minister to actually reconsider. Given that it was the Labor Party's policy to support autonomy for local government, this is inconsistent with its policy, and there are no grounds for appointing a monitor as a result of the recommendations by the Ombudsman. Should the minister proceed, I will be watching her and the actions of the monitor like a hawk, because this is politically motivated. It is a stitch-up, and I am not going to put up with it.