5 February 2025
North Sydney Council’s January consultation to raise rates by between 65% and 111% has triggered an overwhelming backlash, with residents and businesses slamming the move as unaffordable and unfair. The process drew 886 submissions, with a Sun analysis toting 99.2% opposing the options for the highest rate increases and just 0.79% in support. Despite this, Council will vote on Monday night on ratifying an 87% increase over two years as its preferred option.
Many residents warned that the increases would exacerbate cost-of-living pressures and disproportionately impact pensioners, families, and small businesses. “I am a pensioner and my pension will definitely not increase by the same amount. At best most pensioners could only hope for a CPI increase, and with the current cost of living, we are all actually going backwards. This massive increase to me seems aimed at forcing pensioners and lower-income people out of the North Sydney council area and gearing it towards the super-rich,” said one.
Another resident expressed frustration over rising expenses: “I am making sacrifices to deal with inflation and rising mortgage costs. But this council has no interest in doing the same. Every option they list involves spending more money. It’s offensive that they refuse to consider cutting waste and, instead, force us to pick between a 65% or 111% increase.”
A number of submitters were openly angry, accusing the council of misleading residents. One submission argued: “Do you think I’m stupid? Are you actively trying to dupe me into believing all of this? The way you’ve gone about this proposal… I don’t have a choice. I must pay for this whether I want it or not.”
Multiple submissions claimed that the survey was deliberately designed to exclude opposition to the rate increase.
One submission detailed concerns about the lack of an option to reject the Special Rate Variation altogether: “The survey asks for respondents to select which level of rate increase they feel is acceptable. The choices are a range of percentages from 65% to 111%. This means that a survey respondent must indicate approval of at least a 65% rate increase. The survey does not allow respondents to indicate that they do not approve of the increase.”
Another submitter accused the council of manipulating responses to fabricate support: “There is nowhere on the form where users are asked ‘Do you support an SRV application Yes/No?’ And it does not include an option for ‘No SRV,’ but compels respondents to choose a minimum increase of 65%. As such, in my view, this does not constitute a valid ‘Community Consultation,’ and hence the results should not be presented to the meeting of councillors in February, nor to (state pricing tribunal) IPART.”
A long-time ratepayer compared the consultation to previous biased surveys: “I questioned the validity of the ‘Community Consultation’ in 2019 and am questioning it again now. The council then stated in its submission to IPART that ‘The community values the services which it receives and overwhelmingly supports Scenarios 2 and 3’—when in reality, the survey forced people to choose between two bad options. They’re doing it again.”
Another resident described the consultation as misleading and deceptive: “This survey is a fraud on the people of North Sydney. The mayor and councillors knew full well before the election that they planned to increase rates but said nothing. This whole process is rigged to generate a false mandate for the council to do what it already decided to do months ago.”
Several submissions demanded that the North Sydney Pool project be halted entirely due to cost blowouts and mismanagement.
One resident stated outright: “North Sydney Council needs to scrap the swimming pool upgrade as it’s costing way more than we can afford.”
Another submission accused the council of recklessness: “I think it was irresponsible to enter such a project and allow it to spin out as it has. And what percentage of ratepayers will use the pool? Those who use it need to pay for it, not those who don’t. I don’t recall ever giving permission for the council to spend as much as has been spent, and predicted to spend, on the swimming pool. It is an outrageous, irresponsible spend.”
Despite the overwhelming opposition, a small minority of submissions—just 0.79%—expressed support for the options for a rate increase of 75% or more (Options 2a, 2b and 3). One supporter argued North Sydney’s rates are among the lowest in the state despite its high land values: “The average house in the LGA is worth $3 million and went up by 17% last year alone ($400,000). A few hundred bucks out of a $400,000 land value increase seems like a bargain.”
Another submission supported the proposal for long-term financial planning: “I favour the long-term option. The minimum rates in North Sydney are far too low for the services provided. It is ridiculous that over 80% of NS ratepayers are not paying a market rate for the services provided.”
A supporter of the highest increase option backed the financial recovery plan: “Take the hard decision and let us pay off the pool debt in three years. Do not dither. Then ensure careful budget control and get on with the good job you guys are doing. Let’s feel the pain but end up with a great swimming complex.”