The Collection Charge

My comments yesterday on rubbish were wrong, and the explanation in the AMRTimes made everything clear............... well, almost everything. I'm not a Deep Thinker, although trying my best I still have a few issues that need a little more explanation.

The explanation of the rubbish charges printed in the AMRTimes yesterday indicated that all rateable properties would be charged a $200 “Waste Collection Levy”. Everyone pays this charge, and it would seem that the unfortunate naming of this levy had misled me to assume that it was a charge for waste collection. It is not.

From the explanation given it appears that this fee is necessary to, “..........fund current and future waste disposal operations, of which these financial implications that have not previously been costed or considered.” Although some of the text in the advertisement suggests that the shire was taken by surprise that the state was tightening environmental controls this is difficult to fully accept, as waste management issues have been receiving attention at state and federal level for many years. But as an explanation we can accept it and all pay the $200, but we do need our councillors to be watching that the this sum actually does get ring fenced for the purpose stated.

However, more concerning is the apparent failure to acknowledge that we are continuing to develop more houses for tourist occupation without addressing the very real problems of this type of tourism. When tourists are staying within hotels and other serviced styles of accommodation we can have mechanisms in place to charge correctly for waste management. The owners of commercial premises are charged for however many bins they require to be collected each week. When residential houses are used by commercial holiday companies for tourism purposes we do not appear to have a fair and equitable mechanism in place. We know this and yet our strategic planners continue to ignore the fact when stating that there are no financial implications to such developments.

In addition to the $200 charge mentioned above all townsite properties receiving a rubbish collection service are also charged a second $200 fee made up of two parts.

The first comprises a $70 collection charge; to cover the transport, manpower and associated logistics/administration support etc, for the actual collection of the rubbish. Just one flat fee is charged, whether the household puts out one bin or two, or more.

The remaining $130 funds the disposal costs of the waste generated.

Again the advertisement states just $130, a flat fee. Apparently the household can put out as many bins as they wish. Can somebody advise me otherwise, please? With no explanation about how we are charging for the two, or more, wheelie bins of rubbish coming from the holiday houses then we must accept that the residents are subsidising those people operating tourism businesses from residential properties.

At the end of the advertisement we are advised that the rural resident, receiving no collection, are being subsidised by the urban dwellers because we are given a pass to enable up to 26 bags of rubbish to be taken to the transfer station. This does appear to be a gift, and so and we are grateful for this, but please bear in mind that many of us do not use even 10 trips to the transfer station each year and so we rural land owners generally create very little pressure on the waste systems of this shire.

The subsidy being given to rural land owners is so small as to be negligible in calculating the cost of waste in this shire. In contrast we should all be seeking a forensic review of the holiday houses and how their costs are being recovered. 

If we are, as it appears, subsidising the holiday houses then we must ask why?