Mornington Shire’s recent decision to implement a 3% rate increase has sparked significant backlash from local residents, with many questioning the fairness of the move. Deputy Mayor Paul Pingiaro defended the increase, citing an $8 million bill for the aftermath of the McCrae landslide and a lack of state government support. He explained that the Council had little choice but to lock in the maximum allowable 3% rate rise, as financial pressures continue to mount.
Speaking on the night the night, Cr Pingiaro emphasised that the state government had not provided any financial assistance following the landslide, leaving the Council to shoulder the entire recovery cost. Furthermore, the Council has been taking on more responsibilities traditionally handled by the state, compounding the financial strain. As a result, Pingiaro argued, the 3% rate increase was unavoidable.
However, this reasoning has not sat well with many local residents, especially those in areas like Hastings and the Western Port side of the Peninsula. Critics argue that the rate hike disproportionately impacts lower-income communities, with some feeling that the recovery costs for affluent areas like Mt Martha should not be funded by residents who are already financially strained.
“I don’t think it’s fair that people in Hastings, who already face economic struggles, should be paying for a disaster that affected affluent areas like Mt Martha,” one resident said.
“A $50 increase might seem small to some, but for those of us on the Western Port side, it feels like we’re being unfairly burdened.”
Adding fuel to the fire is the broken trust felt by many residents. Deputy Mayor Pingiaro, along with Mayor Marsh, Cr Rankin, and Cr Williams, had campaigned on a platform that promised a rate freeze. The councillors’ decision to vote for the 3% increase has left many questioning their commitment to the promises made during the election.
“The backflip is hard to swallow. We were promised a freeze, and now we’re left dealing with a rate hike,” another local resident remarked.
The decision has also led to frustration over the perceived inequity in the rate distribution. Local groups, particularly those representing the Western Port side of the Peninsula, have expressed concern that the burden of the recovery costs is falling disproportionately on economically struggling communities, while wealthier areas seem to be less affected.
With community outrage continuing to grow, the Council faces mounting pressure to address the concerns of residents and find a solution that feels fair to all. As the debate over the rate hike rages on, it remains to be seen whether the Council can regain the trust of its constituents or if this decision will have lasting political consequences.
