Strzelecki Ward Citizens Assembly

17/09/2026

Andrew McEwen
Co Convenor Strzelecki Ward Citizens Assembly
Andrew.ecolore .com
0488242478
18/09/2026
The Editor
Pools, Dam Lies and Statistic
THE CONTINUING SAGA OF THE KORUMBURRA POOL AND ITS PRECARIOUS FUTURE
It was very pleasing to read the early stages of the report of the South Gippsland Shire on Aquatic Options Paper (pools) which replaces the Council’s Strategic Direction for Aquatic Facilities 2015-2020. There was an excellent recognition in the introduction of the value communities place on pools and their benefits to the community. The report recognises the community fundraising efforts to establish the pools and recognises the pride that communities hold for them.
However, we feel thar the report does not recognise the significant role that the Korumburra pool plays in the South Gippsland Shire. It is the only 50m pool for school competitions both for the South Gippsland Shire and for our neighbouring Bass Coast Shire. It is the only pool that can provide accredited training for lifeguards, the program that is currently supported by the Martin Carlson Foundation. It plays a significant role for those learning to swim, for young people as a leisure centre, for competitive swimmers and for residents who use it for hydrotherapy programs.
The financial component of the report details the repairs and renewal needed, the associated costs and the number of users. However, the report properly calculates the predicted cost per user in the next 15 years for only four of the six the South Gippsland Shire pools. It fails to amortise the capital costs of the Mirboo North and Leongatha Splash pools thus setting up a false comparison. Korumburra is identified as a cost of $134 per user in comparison to an operation cost of per user for Leongatha Splash’s only $11 and Mirboo North $26. The replacement cost of Splash would be in the order of $40m and Mirboo North $15m.
The actual cost per current user is as follows: Foster $26/user, Poowong $47, Mirboo North $26, Splash $11 and Korumburra $21. If the amortised replacement cost for Leongatha Splash were included, the cost for Leongatha Splash would be substantially greater as would Mirboo North. We need to compare apples with apples not pears!
Council argues that it cannot afford the costs involved in maintaining all six pools. Yet Council’s own policy documents identify $7.5m in reserved asset capital funds without any project identified as required by their own policy. On page 14 of their budget paper, they identify other financial assets estimated for 2026 at $17m and rising to $39m in 2030. A suspicious observer may conclude that these monies and the sale of the Korumburra seniors complex may well be already earmarked for the purported $25m cost of the yet unapproved memorial art precinct in Leongatha.
We feel the report fails to examine the impact of the neglected state of the extremely poor and inferior pool facilities at Korumburra that have not been maintained properly. The Korrumburra Pool has been poorly marketed, and its 50-metre length emphasised, and the pool itself should have been renewed five years ago. The Korumburra pool’s current comparatively high costs per user and declining user numbers are a consequence of Council’s poor management and this lack asset renewal.
Council’s key role is that of a service provider. Its credibility exists to the extent it delivers all of its service in an equitable way to all towns across the Shire and allocates funding in a transparent manner. And indeed, is transparent about its real financial position.
We urge the Council recalibrate the future needs and future cost per user of the Korumburra Pool, based on incorporating the amortised capital costs of the Mirboo North and the Leongatha Splash pools. It also needs to include an analysis of what roles each pool actually plays in each local community and how the deteriorating conditions and lack of promotion of the Korrumburra Pool’s distinct features have adversely affected usage.
Korumburra, Mirboo, and Toora have distinct and significant roles to play across the South Gippsland Shire, so we feel that each warrants a specific Strategy to sustain them in the future. The future substantial population growth projected for Nyora and Poowong would suggest that serious consideration be made to how their needs are serviced. Korumburra’s population is growing and high-quality accessible local facilities are much needed, given the appalling lack of local public transport. If Council is serious about transparency and equitable budget allocation, it needs to reexamine its’ deficient report.

Andrew McEwen
Co-convener

07/05/2026

Budget Submission

Strzelecki Ward Citizens Assembly Budget Submission
On South Gippsland Shire’s Draft 2026/7 Budget
Recommendations
In light of the global economic and financial outlook Council approve a one-year rate freeze that is more than affordable with projected surpluses and reserves whilst maintaining its services and facilities as per their draft budget and that it reconsiders continuing such a freeze in second and third years of the proposed budget
That Council seriously consider reverting to at least a 4-week consultation period to allow groups to meet to discuss the budget and respond to it if they desire as an act to restore confidence in Councils consultation and engagement which is standing at only 46%. Three weeks is manifestly inadequate and runs against the community comment period of at least 28 days under Victoria’s Local Government Act requirement for public exhibition of a draft budget before adoption.
That South Gippsland Council provide an open community/council workshop where residents can speak to their budget submission and Council can respond to them in finalising the budget.
That South Gippsland Council restore the detailed 3-year capital works budget and the notional 15-year budget so that people are actually aware and informed about what Council is doing including in the capital works budget rather than just aggregated figures.
Introduction
Criticism can be dealt with in a number of ways. It can be taken as genuine feedback on what people’s real needs and priorities are and whether you are addressing them. In other words, constructive criticism. Or it can be denied, deflected, or belittled with organisations becoming closed and defensive. Sometimes defenders of organisations can fall prey to their own PR believing all is ‘hunky dory.’
There is widespread resident dissatisfaction across the South Gippsland shire about inadequate consultation processes and the absence of genuine opportunities for feedback. Effective Council leadership requires feedback to be viewed as a positive benefit - for feedback to be weighed up, understood and responded to. Feedback gained through commissioned customer market research is also particularly valuable to give insight into resident perceptions of Council’s performance and on where to focus improvement efforts.

Resident Rates Freeze Petition
In collecting the 2000 plus signatures for a 3 year rate freeze what was evident that 10-20% didn’t care or weren’t interested; a good 20-30% didn’t require any convincing; but dangerously for our Shire 30% of respondents didn’t see any obvious value of the shire to them, notwithstanding the road, pools, libraries, preschools, halls, parks etc available to them. Of particular concern would be 10-20% highly vehement and critical verging on aggression. This was quite startling for people who actually believer in Council’ role and functions and wish to improve its performance and perception in the community.
The world is a less trusting place today with declining standards of living and the reality of an untamed social media creating dysfunctional rabbit holes that many succumb to. All democracies are in crises which is not healthy for our communities or governance. It behoves all of us to take a constructive approach to what we can all do.
We all are suffering from a cost-of-living crisis where incomes have failed to keep up with the full costs of living. This has been heightened by the current Middle East crisis where fuels costs have risen and will according to analyst likely remain high until at least 2027, when replacement for damaged Middle Eastern oil assets could have been made. We believe that what we are asking for is affordable and doable.
Positives and Negatives in the draft budget
The positives in the draft budget are the maintenance and continued funding for services and facilities notwithstanding the deteriorating economic environment. The negative is its failure to address the growing disquiet in the community and the strong desire for some form of rate relief.
Benefits of Rates Freeze
Providing rate relief for our community would strongly communicate to the community that:
 Councillors are really listening and genuinely care.
 That Council is empathetic with not only their situation but also ours and will act.
 Would begin restoring trust in Council with more than 50% believing positively in its overall performance.

Rate relief would join with prudent financial management to provide a strong positive message to the community. Council has the opportunity to address the reality that only one in two people have a positive view of it. Or it could simply deny the message!

Discussion
South Gippsland Shire has claimed it has made a budget for Council and the community that recognises the current global economic crisis and that it has been financially prudent. Yet the proposed simply assumes that it requires the implementation of the State Government limited rate rise of 2.75%. The budget expenditure is projected to rise in 2026/7 by 5.7%, not a real ‘tightening of the belt’. This unnecessary rate rise provides no relief for ratepayers let alone apparent empathy and recognition for the dire financial position of families, business, and farmers. It is a budget cast from the narrow perspective of the organisation and not immediate needs of the wider community.
A full-time worker in Australia on average earnings has lost around $8,000 in living standards over the past three year, when mortgages and cost of living are included (Richardson & Jerico, Australia Institute 2026). Australian households experienced the largest fall in disposable incomes across the OECD over the past two years, and economists forecast it will take another two years for purchasing power to recover to pre-pandemic levels. (Australian Financial Review Michael Read Aug 24)
We all are suffering not just Council!

We already have above $3 for diesel and it is possible if a solutions is not found soon that petrol is likely to move towards $3 per litre. Economists are already predicting.
an estimated 5% inflation rate. Our personal incomes in the Shire are roughly 15–25% lower than Australia and our family incomes are roughly 20–30% lower than Australia Source ABS). We are less able than most Australians to deal with a rapid spike in the cost of living. Our Councillors need to show some compassion and empathy for all of us?

Councils proposed budget has not been cut back at all. Its expenses are predicted to rise by $4.281m. Its staffing remains the same; its capital works is virtually unchanged; it surpluses decline by $5.934m, but it remains at a health $ 6.443m.

South Gippsland is still underperforming with an average key performance indicators in the State Governments Customer Satisfaction Survey for Councils of only 49%. This has been on a declining path since 2012 and has declined by 7.4%. Our group over a month collected over 2000 signatures for a petition to freeze rates for 3 years. This would cost around $1.04m in the first year and some $3.5m over three years which would more than be met by existing reserves without any cut back to services and facilities.

State Government Customer Satisfaction Survey of Councils
South Gippsland Shire 2012 2025 % change
Overall performance 50 45 -10.0
Consultation & Engagement 53 46 -13.2
Customer Service 65 57 -12.3
Overall Direction 43 44 2.3
South Gippsland Shire Avg 52.4 48.5 -7.4
Large Rural Shire 56.5 47.75 -15.5
SGS vs large rural shires -7.3 1.6 -51.9

Its overall Council performance has had declined by 7.4% since 2012 and its consultation and engagement by 12.3%.

South Gippsland Shire has the fourth highest rates per its peer group of large rural shires. In the latest data for 2024/5 its average rates per assessment vs Large Rural Shires Group was $2004 and South Gippsland Shire $2280. South Gippsland in comparison with its group of large rural Shires is 13.7% above the average cost of rate per assessment and is 4th highest of 19 similar Councils.

Rather than benchmarking and managing performance and costs and emulating the best practice performance Council has taken the easy path out and has historically increased rates above cost-of-living costs (see table and graph below). Between 2006 and 2016 Council increased rates by 41.7% above cost of living. State government rate capping has cut this but still remains 27% above cost of living between 2006-26, People are paying $711 above the cost of living of this period.



Council is ‘crying poor,’ but its budget and accounts suggest otherwise, Council draft budget sees healthy surpluses from 2026/7 to 2029/30 averaging $10m. Council in its balance sheet on page 27 of the draft budget has ‘Other financial assets’ (read reserves) of $24.983m and no change on balance from 2025/6. The average reserves for the next three years are $28.483m. The budget fails to provide any detail of what these funds are allocated for if anything.

Council has in the light of increased costs of natural disasters has a provision of $3m to reserves. It has paid out $24m in the past four years but been reimbursed $19m.

In the past ten years it has become increasingly difficult to analyse the budget with information that was once provided deleted including the 3 year and 15-year capital works budget and the nature of reserves. It is clear with the continued surpluses and reserves provide the flexibility for Council to provide rate relief. Given the declining global outlook and financial position after the Petition was launched it may well be prudent to consider at least one year’s rate relief. It is more than affordable and would provide Councillors with an opportunity to really listen and be genuinely empathetic in responding to the community.

From the available information Council has reserve of $24.98m in 2027 and the next three years of $28.483m. The balance of reserves over Commitments is $16m in 2026/7 budget (see appendix below). If a one-year rate freeze were implemented the reserves after allowances would remain at nearly $15m.
Improving Council level of satisfaction in the Customer Satisfaction Survey
State Government Customer Satisfaction survey has as reported a decline across the board in Overall Performance, Consultation & Engagement and Customer Service for our Shire. While correlation is not causation or definitive proof the decline has been associated with when Council has progressively reduced opportunities for genuine engagement and consulting and reduced budgetary information. Open question time has been dispensed with and replaced with a very limited and pre vetted questions only abut Council business on the day. What used to be participatory collaborative workshops on Council’s budget, plans and policies (IPA2 Spectrum level 4) has been replaced with one-to-one comments and feedback (IPA2 Spectrum level 2) that is a superficial and according to IPA2 Participation spectrum at the lower levels and not open to genuine community discussion as occurred previously.

IPA2 Spectrum of public participation
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
INFORM CONSULT ENGAGE COLLABORATE EMPOWER
Current limited Council level Previous Council Level

Council’s engagement with the community using the IPA2 spectrum is really primarily operating at low levels one and two and fails clearly to operate at higher levels and only at levels two.

In order to be accountable and transparent lesson should be learned that when these things were done Council had much higher levels of satisfaction.

Extracts for Council’s Draft 2027/229 budget

Surpluses 2026-2027 $10.67m (p6)

Balance Sheet
Reserves
Other Financial Assets (p27)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
$24.98m $24,983 $27,983 $27,983 $32,983 Avg 26-29

Commitments
Carried forward works(p9) $2.16m (p9)
Trust Fund $2.82m (p27)
Emergency Funds $3.00m (p 5)
Total $8.96m

Balance Reserves vs Commitments $16.02m
Proposed rates increase $ 1.039
Balance after zero rate rise 26/7 $14.981m

Surpluses Deficits (p83)
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
$16.6m $10.67 $11.92 $8.44m $9.010

Comprehensive Income Statement (p26)
Surplus/(deficit) for the year
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
$16,602m $10,668m 11,924m $8,436m $9,01m

Rates (P26)
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
$54,420 $56,570 $57,575 $59,070 $60,603
Increase $1,039 $1,00 $1,496

07/05/2026

24/04/2026

The Editor

Austerity for us, Plenty for them!

The Mayor and Councillors have made much of the professionalism and responsibility behind South Gippsland Shire’s Draft Budget 2026/27, presenting it as a careful response to difficult times. However, the reality appears quite different. The draft budget shows overall growth of 5.7%, including the full 2.75% rate cap increase. Staff numbers, capital works, services, facilities, grants and asset renewal are all maintained. Expenditure is to increase by $4.3m This is not a picture of restraint.

There was no concern or compassion about the predicament and real financial challenges facing our families, businesses, and the community. Currently welfare organisations are reporting that 30% of families are currently seeking food assistance from charities, half of them unsuccessfully. Many small businesses are doing it tough, but Council’s future aspirations are apparently more important. We are a less advantaged community at a time when real incomes have fallen behind cost of living and mortgage costs.

At the same time, many in our community are under genuine financial strain. Welfare organisations report that around 30% of families are seeking food assistance, with many unable to access it. Small businesses are struggling, and real household incomes are being squeezed by rising living and mortgage costs. Yet this context appears largely absent from Council’s approach.
Council representatives have suggested that a one-year rate freeze would lead to service cuts. The figures in the draft budget do not support this claim. A rate freeze would cost approximately $1.1 million in one year, or $3.3 million over three years. Meanwhile, Council is forecasting operating surpluses averaging around $10 million annually, including $10.7 million in 2027.
In addition, “other financial assets” (reserves) are projected to sit at around $28–29 million over the next three years, with no clear allocation detailed in the budget. Even allowing for disaster costs—where 75% is typically reimbursed under state and Commonwealth arrangements—the net impact over five years has been about $5 million. With a $3 million disaster reserve already in place, and accounting for trust funds and capital works carry-forwards, a substantial portion of these reserves remains uncommitted.
Despite this, Council argues that using even a small portion of these funds to ease pressure on ratepayers would be fiscally irresponsible. At the same time, reserves are projected to grow further, reaching approximately $33 million by 2029, without clear explanation. A growth equivalent to $5m larger than the three year costs fo a one year rate freeze.
A general argument has been made about the need to co-fund future grants, but no new major capital commitments are identified that would require additional funding beyond what is already budgeted. The reserve for disasters of $3m as approved by Council is more than adequate. There is $2.8m in trust funds and a carry forward for uncompleted capital works of $2.2m. Given Council own budgeted other financial assets of $28m meeting these commitments would leave $20m of funds.

Council in reality has continuing surpluses and growing reserves!

It is correct that $24m has been paid out for disasters in the last 5 years but the Commonwealth and State disaster fund provides a 75% refund for major disasters and so the net cost was $5m. The reserve for disasters of $3m as approved by Council is more than adequate. There is $2.8m in trust funds and a carry forward for uncompleted capital works of $2.2m. Given Council own budgeted other financial assets of $28m meeting these commitments would leave $20m of funds.

At a time Council is arguing that fiscal irresponsibility for a rate freeze costing $1.1m other financial assets are estimated to grow from $28-32m without any budgetary explanation.

A spurious argument was made that funds could be required to match grants but there is no new capital works commitment made that would require additional grant over and above existing budget assumptions.

Council in reality has continuing surpluses and growing reserves!

The question remain why Council is growing at a time of supposed austerity its unallocated other financial reserves to $33m in 2029. What could it be for? Clearly it would allow comfortably a rates freeze without any cutbacks required for a zero rate rise for three years cost of living relief.

Could it be an unallocated reserves for implementing the findings of the current $0.4m study for an arts centre, library, and civic centre in Leongatha? What is seriously worrying is the obvious lack of financial literacy of our Councillors supposedly running a $90m business.. We are left with austerity for us but ‘plenty’ for Council. When will Councillor look after us rather than just defending Council? We should not continue to be treated as Council’s personal cash personal ATM.

Council used to provide at least four week to responds to the budget vs the three weeks provided. It used to also provide far more detail with what was going on and what they were doing. Their detailed capital works program and actual reserves. How can we comment on a budget that we do not know the details of capital works, are not provide information on what reserves are held and why. It as if we the community were an afterthought.

Andrew McEwen
Co-coordinator
Strzelecki Ward Citizens Assembly
0488242478
[email protected]

07/05/2026

02/03/2026

Wednesday meeting has been cancelled as we concentrate on rates freeze petition

16/02/2026

Korumburra Community Development Association is engaging the community on local needs and priorities. Please us phone to read QR Code and or use the URL web address to access the survey