2026
11 August - PROPOSED 2026/27 DIFFERENTIAL RATES – QUESTIONS RAISED
Question One: The $115,000 spent on a bus, given Carnarvon has a public bus system and a bus charter business, what is the intended use of this bus? Who approved it? When did this item get
addressed by council? Where does it appear in the minutes? And was there a significant conflict of interest by the chair of the GDC? As ratepayer what is the process for me to book this bus?
The Shire has not spent $115,000 on a bus. The project relates to a successful application for funding under the State Government's Regional Economic Development (REDS) Grant Program for the Carnarvon Tourism Product Development and Incubator Program.
While the grant has been announced, the funding agreement is yet to be executed, and the vehicle has not been purchased. The project has therefore been reflected within the proposed budget in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards and advice provided by the Shire's external financial advisers, MOORE Australia.
The proposed vehicle is intended to support the development of new tourism experiences in Carnarvon by enabling guided coastal, rangeland and cultural tours and by providing an incubator for emerging local tourism operators, including Aboriginal-owned tourism businesses.
The objective is to help develop new tourism products and build local industry capacity rather than provide a public transport service. The grant application was prepared in accordance with the Shire's
External Grants Policy and aligns with the Shire's Strategic Community Plan, Economic Development Strategy and Tourism objectives.
The inclusion of the project within the proposed budget does not represent a standalone Council decision to purchase a bus. Rather, it reflects the accounting requirement to recognise the announced grant during the budget preparation process. Any expenditure will remain subject to the execution of the funding agreement and the Shire's normal procurement and governance processes.
In relation to your question regarding a conflict of interest involving the Chair of the Gascoyne Development Commission, the Shire is not aware of any finding or determination that a conflict of interest existed. The governance of the Regional Economic Development Scheme, including the management of any declarations of interest by members of the Gascoyne Development Commission, is a matter for the Commission and the State Government, not the Shire.
Finally, as the program is not yet operational, there is currently no public booking process for the vehicle. Should the project proceed, the Shire will develop and publicly communicate the operational model, including governance arrangements, eligibility, booking processes, fees (if applicable), insurance requirements and how the program will interact with existing tourism and transport operators.
Question Two: The purchase of a 4x4 for the CEO, it was my understanding that vehicles would be leased by the SoC, when did council change the policy of leasing vehicles?, What date was it ordered, Who ordered it, where in the SoC minutes does it appear? and What meeting did councilors approve this?
The Shire has no policy in relation to the acquisition of assets (vehicles or otherwise) or whether they are leased and or purchased. Local Government generally benefits from purchase rather that leasing -
For long-life assets that will be used continuously in service delivery—particularly vehicles, plant and operational equipment—the Shire’s default position should be to purchase, preferably through an established State Government Common Use Arrangement or the WALGA Preferred Supplier Program.
- When the Shire purchases an asset:
- it owns the asset;
- it controls when the asset is replaced;
- it can continue using it beyond the initially forecast replacement date where condition and operating cost justify that decision;
- it can transfer reusable fit-outs and accessories; and
- it receives the proceeds when the asset is eventually disposed of.
Under a lease, the lessor generally retains the residual value or incorporates it into the lease pricing. The Shire may therefore fund the use of the asset for several years but have no sale proceeds or continuing asset at the end of the term.
For a regional local government operating high-kilometre vehicles, specialised plant and heavily fitted operational units, that residual value can be material.
A lower annual lease payment can look attractive in an annual budget, but it does not mean the asset costs less.
There is no income-tax incentive
Private businesses may consider leasing because lease payments can produce taxation consequences. That incentive does not generally exist for a local government. The Income Tax Assessment Act identifies municipal corporations and local governing bodies as income-tax-exempt entities.
The Shire therefore does not obtain the same income-tax deduction benefit that may influence a private-sector lease decision.
The Vehicle was ordered in consultation with the President and in accordance with the Shires Procurement Processes. The Vehicle is a tool-of-trade contractual entitlement of the CEO’s Employment Contract. Discussions were held with the President and staff excluding the CEO across August 2025 and September 2025. The President authorised the final decision to purchase over other considerations.
The Council authorisation through the Budget Process is included below -
Question Four: It is my opinion that there has been unfettered spending on staff, namely “the jobs for the boy’s mentality” this is a serious issue and warrants an investigation.
The Shire maintains an underlying workforce establishment of approximately 89 full-time equivalent positions. This number may fluctuate between financial years where additional positions are externally funded for specific programs, projects or service priorities.
For example, the Shire currently employs an additional 13 FTE through the Australian Government’s Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program. These positions, including associated employment on-costs, are fully funded through approximately $3.5 million in external funding over three years and do not form part of the Shire’s permanent base staffing establishment.
Employee expenditure is considered through the Council’s annual budget and ongoing financial reporting processes. The recruitment, appointment, promotion and management of employees are undertaken in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, applicable employment requirements and the Shire’s adopted policies and procedures. Section 5.40 of the Act requires employees to be selected and promoted on the principles of merit and equity and expressly provides that employment powers must not be exercised on the basis of nepotism or patronage.
Matters concerning individual employees are confidential personnel matters and cannot appropriately be discussed or disclosed publicly.
Should you hold specific information or evidence suggesting that an appointment, expenditure decision or employment process was improper, you may lodge a written complaint through the Shire’s formal complaints process. The complaint should clearly identify the particular decision or conduct of concern, the relevant circumstances and dates, and any supporting information or evidence. A generalised, allegation, without particulars or supporting evidence, is not sufficient in itself to establish that wrongdoing has occurred or to support a formal investigation.
10 August - CORAL BAY RATES, SPECIFIED AREA RATE AND SHIRE SERVICE DELIVERY
Question One: How many ratepayers are there in Coral Bay?
There are 42 rateable assessments in Coral Bay, held across approximately 34 distinct ratepayer accounts.
The number of ratepayer accounts is lower than the number of assessments because several ratepayers hold more than one property or assessment within Coral Bay.
The review also identified six non-rateable assessments associated with State Government and Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions land holdings. These assessments do not pay general rates or the Coral Bay Specified Area Rate.
Question Two: What is the total value of rates collected in Coral Bay from developed and undeveloped land?
The figures below represent the amounts levied for the completed 2025/26 financial year, rather than cash receipts collected.
Determining the exact amount collected would require a separate reconciliation of payments received, rates arrears and outstanding balances.
For 2025/26, the verified amounts levied against Coral Bay assessments were:
- General rates – $603,536.28
- Coral Bay Tip Maintenance Specified Area Rate – $419,888.28
- Combined levy, excluding the Emergency Services Levy – $1,023,424.56
The rateable assessment base includes developed, vacant, commercial and tourism land. However, the rating data does not contain a consistently applied developed or undeveloped classification across all assessments. Undeveloped land if allocated as a rateable parcel and in the Coral Bay Development boundary will be rated as per the GRV category. If the land is undeveloped and not yet a rateable parcel as administered by Landgate it will not currently be rated.
The 8.5 per cent increase referred to in your correspondence relates to the 2026/27 rating year. The figures above relate to the completed 2025/26 financial year and were used because they could be verified against the final rating and expenditure records.
Question Three: How are Coral Bay rates spent?
Local governments do not record or manage each town or ward as a separate financial entity.
Regulation 7 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to have regard to the needs of the district as a whole. It also prevents a local government from maintaining separate ward accounts or determining expenditure on the basis of revenue raised from a particular ward.
The Shire’s finances are therefore recorded through organisation-wide funds, service programs, general ledger accounts, jobs and asset records rather than through a separate Coral Bay profit-andloss account. General rates imposed under section 6.32 of the Local Government Act 1995 contribute towards the overall funding requirements of the Shire and support services and infrastructure across the district. General rates raised in Coral Bay are not quarantined for expenditure only within Coral Bay.
A Specified Area Rate is different. Section 6.37 of the Act allows a local government to impose a Specified Area Rate for a particular work, service or facility that benefits, is available to, or is contributed to by properties within a defined area. Money raised through the Specified Area Rate must be applied to that purpose.
The figures below are therefore the result of a targeted locality-based management review undertaken to identify Coral Bay-related activity from within the Shire’s broader financial records. They are not a separate statutory account for Coral Bay.
For 2025/26, the review identified:
- Direct operating expenditure – $479,767.79
- Approximate employee and vehicle allocation – $483,108.35
- Service-delivery cost before depreciation – $962,876.14
- Identifiable depreciation – $118,047.70
- Total operational and asset-use cost – $1,080,923.84
The employee and vehicle amount is a management estimate developed through targeted officer consultation where Coral Bay activity was not separately recorded in the financial system.
After recognising identifiable depreciation, Coral Bay’s operational and asset-use cost was approximately $57,499.28 higher than the combined general rates and Specified Area Rate levied.
The review also identified a further $175,634.68 in capital and project expenditure during 2025/26. This brought the gross cost and investment identified for Coral Bay during the year to $1,256,558.52.
This is a gross cost and investment comparison. Some capital and project expenditure is supported through external funding and should not be interpreted as having been funded entirely through Coral Bay general rates or the Specified Area Rate.
Key service areas included:
- waste services and waste-facility operations;
- public amenities and visitor infrastructure;
- Coral Bay Airstrip operations and maintenance;
- roads and infrastructure;
- Ranger services;
- community and tourism support;
- emergency management;
- employee, vehicle and corporate support; and
- elected member governance.
The review separately identified $297,198.34 in costs directly connected with the purpose of the Coral Bay Specified Area Rate. This included waste-facility operations, refuse and bin collection, environmental health oversight, identifiable waste depreciation and waste-related project expenditure.
The difference between the costs directly identified through the review and the Specified Area Rate levied should not be interpreted as an available surplus or as evidence that the rate was not used for its stated purpose. Not all executive oversight, contract management, new waste site planning, vehicle use and corporate support costs could be separately apportioned to the waste service.
Question Four: What works have been undertaken in Coral Bay over the previous five years?
The Shire does not maintain separate locality-based accounting records and has not prepared a transaction-by-transaction list of every historical Coral Bay expense.
The following is a high-level summary of completed physical works, design and investigation activity, strategic infrastructure planning and ongoing asset-management initiatives identified over the previous five years.
Coral Bay Shared Path to the Boat Ramp
Design for a proposed 1.35-kilometre shared path from the townsite to the boat ramp was completed in 2022 at a cost of approximately $26,960 excluding GST.
Construction was deferred by Council in 2023 after project estimates exceeded $900,000. The completed design remains available to support a future funding application.
Waste management and replacement-site planning
The Shire has continued operating the licensed Coral Bay Waste Facility and providing high-frequency waste, refuse and litter-bin collection services.
Work has also included Waste Concept Development investigations, surveys of the existing and proposed waste-facility sites, cyclone-related repairs and planning for a future replacement facility.
Coral Bay Airstrip
Major pavement reshaping and polymer stabilisation works were completed in 2023 to improve the binding and serviceability of the existing pavement material.
The Shire has also continued monthly safety inspections, maintenance, serviceability checks and assetmanagement activity.
Roads, streets and public areas
Activities have included French Street Black Spot design and geotechnical investigations, contractor works on Banksia Drive and Airstrip Road, street maintenance, signage, vegetation and debris management, parking and pathway activity.
Coral Bay Precinct Structure Plan
Work has included development of the Coral Bay Precinct Structure Plan, community and stakeholder consultation and liaison with State Government and environmental agencies, including the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions.
Planning and Building Services
The Shire has undertaken extensive building and planning services in Coral Bay with the significant development and building renewal that has been undertaken privately – development of the RAC Resort and Service Works Accommodation, Bay View Waterfront Apartments, Monks Developments – Units and Caravan Park and other town planning requirements have required extensive building and planning management and expertise.
Public amenities and visitor infrastructure
The Shire has continued cleaning and maintaining public ablutions and the fish-cleaning facility, undertaking drainage and minor amenity works, providing additional peak-period servicing and maintaining visitor signage and related infrastructure.
In addition to these initiatives, the Shire continues to provide Ranger, airport, tourism, library, governance, waste and emergency management services within Coral Bay.
Question Five: Do all ratepayers pay the Specified Area Rate and what is the total amount raised?
The Coral Bay Tip Maintenance Specified Area Rate applies to all rateable assessments within the specified area, including:
- residential properties;
- vacant land;
- commercial properties; and
- tourism properties.
It does not apply to the six non-rateable State Government and Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions assessments.
The Specified Area Rate is valuation-based. It is not a flat charge of approximately $1,500 applied equally to every property, and the amount payable therefore varies between assessments.
For 2025/26, the verified amount levied through the Coral Bay Tip Maintenance Specified Area Rate was $419,888.28.
Question Six: Do local businesses contribute?
Yes, rateable commercial and tourism properties within Coral Bay contribute through their property assessments in the same manner as other rateable properties.
The assessment base includes caravan parks, resorts, shops, telecommunications facilities, worker accommodation and other commercial and tourism properties. These assessments contribute through general rates and the Coral Bay Specified Area Rate.
Where a business operates from leased premises, the relevant rates liability rests with the rated property owner, subject to any private arrangements between the owner and occupier.
Question Seven - Reported $15,000 annual charge
The Shire has not identified a statutory Shire charge of $15,000 per year applying to Coral Bay residents.
Without a copy of the relevant lease, licence, service agreement, invoice or other supporting document, the Shire cannot reliably determine what the reported amount relates to.
Should you provide the relevant supporting documentation, the Shire can review the matter further.
10 August - LARGE MOBILE MACHINERY AND AMP
Question One: “The AMP lists Plant and Equipment at approximately $2.024 million. What is the basis of this valuation and does it accurately reflect current condition and replacement requirements?”
The Asset Management Plan records the Plant and Vehicles asset class at a fair value of approximately $2.024 million as at the time the AMP was prepared.
This is a depreciated accounting value derived from the Shire’s asset register and recognised valuation methodologies. It takes into account matters including asset age, assessed useful life, replacement-cost inputs and accumulated depreciation.
The figure is appropriate for the accounting and strategic planning purpose for which it was prepared. However, it does not represent:
- the current cost of replacing the fleet with new assets;
- the mechanical condition of each asset;
- the remaining operational life of individual machines;
- the economic viability of undertaking further repairs; or
- the order in which assets should be replaced.
Similarly, any percentage shown in the AMP’s asset-class summary should not be interpreted as meaning that the same percentage of the fleet is in good mechanical condition or adequately funded for replacement.
Current management work estimates that the replacement value of the broader plant portfolio is approximately $10 million, which illustrates the significant difference between depreciated accounting value and contemporary replacement cost.
Individual replacement decisions are therefore made through asset-specific assessments. These consider:
- operating hours or kilometres;
- current mechanical and structural condition;
- maintenance and breakdown history;
- downtime and service interruptions;
- utilisation and operational need;
- workplace safety and compliance;
• availability of parts and regional technical support;
• replacement, refurbishment and hire alternatives; and
• whole-of-life cost and current market pricing.
The grader, street sweeper and other major items are currently being assessed through this more detailed process as part of the 2026/27 Plant Replacement Program.
Question Two: “The AMP states that inventory and valuation data are reliable. What evidence supports this assessment?”
Within the AMP, the word “Reliable” has a specific technical meaning. It is a data-confidence classification based on the methodology adopted from the International Infrastructure Management Manual.
In that context, reliable data is information supported by sound records, procedures, investigations and analysis, with an expected level of accuracy of approximately plus or minus 10 per cent for strategic planning purposes.
The classification relates to the quality of the Shire’s asset inventory and valuation information. It does not mean that every item of plant is mechanically reliable, in good condition or appropriately timed for replacement.
The assessment is supported by information including:
- the Shire’s asset register;
- acquisition and age records;
- financial valuation and depreciation records;
- fleet and operational information;
- inspection records;
- operating hours and kilometres;
- maintenance and repair histories; and
- other available asset records.
The current 2026/27 plant review has gone further by examining three years of maintenance records, together with condition, safety, compliance, operating-hour and service-continuity information. The maintenance review identified approximately $535,833 of expenditure across the principal assets being considered for replacement. Maintenance cost is not the only replacement test, but it is an important part of the evidence.
The AMP should therefore be understood as a strategic foundation that is continually tested and refined as better operational and condition information becomes available.
Question Three: “When will the assumptions within the AMP next be reviewed?”
There are two levels of review. First, AMP assumptions are tested on an ongoing basis through:
- annual budget preparation;
- updates to the asset register;
- maintenance and operating-data reviews;
- condition inspections;
- individual plant replacement assessments; and
- changes in market prices, service requirements and financial capacity.
The current review of the grader, street sweeper and other plant assets is an example of that ongoing validation process.
Second, a comprehensive review and realignment of the AMP and the Shire’s broader strategic planning framework is proposed for 2027 (When Council can be orientated and adequately informed). This will allow the newly elected Council to establish its strategic direction and align the Council Plan, Strategic Community Plan, Corporate Business Plan, Long-Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Plan and supporting renewal programs.
The scheduling of that comprehensive review does not mean that urgent asset decisions will be deferred. Existing plans continue to operate, and safety-critical maintenance, condition assessment, budget decisions and necessary plant replacement will continue during the Commissioner’s term.
Question Four: “When will the Shire be in a position to fund replacement of these assets and how will that funding be raised?”
Subject to final Budget adoption, procurement compliance, final quotations and finance confirmation, the Shire proposes to commence a significant program of plant renewal during 2026/27.
The latest reconciled estimate for the complete proposed program is approximately $1.605 million to $1.631 million, excluding GST. This is a proposed program ceiling rather than an obligation to spend the entire amount.
The program has been prioritised according to risk.
Critical First Priorities
The proposed critical tranche totals approximately $917,500 and includes:
- replacement of the workshop truck hoist;
- replacement of the PGRA1 motor grader; and
- replacement of the PTRU4 tipper and crane.
These assets are not being prioritised simply because they are old. The workshop hoist has been
removed from service, the grader is out of service, and the tipper and crane have significant
structural and compliance concerns.
PGRA1 Grader
The existing grader is a 2004 Caterpillar 12H with approximately 15,000 operating hours. It is out of service, has significant corrosion and requires major repairs. The current preferred new replacement is estimated at approximately $485,500 excluding GST, subject to final procurement and comparison with any properly documented second-hand alternative.
High Priorities
Street sweeper - For the street sweeper, the preferred pathway is currently to purchase and comprehensively refurbish the existing leased unit.
That option is estimated at approximately $204,632 to $230,552 excluding GST and is expected to extend its service life by approximately three to five years. A new sweeper has been quoted at approximately $485,174 excluding GST. Subject to structural, lease, warranty and refurbishmentscope checks, refurbishment could therefore preserve approximately $255,000 to $281,000 for other priority plant requirements.
Funding
The current draft funding envelope provides for a combination of approximately:
- $1.25 million in new borrowings; and
- $460,000 from reserves.
The final funding mix remains subject to Budget adoption, Finance confirmation, supplier delivery schedules, reserve requirements and cashflow management. It is the priority of Council to keep the borrowings to a minimum and any adjustments in the end of year position will be directed to the purchase of this plant. Borrowings should be directed principally toward long-life, service-critical plant whose benefits will extend over a number of years.
Reserve funds and available cash may be more appropriate for shorter-life or lower-value items. Any trade-in and disposal proceeds should be returned to the Plant Reserve unless otherwise determined through the Budget.
The proposed $1.6 million program will not replace the entire ageing fleet. It is a substantial and necessary first tranche. The Shire cannot undo many years of deferred renewal in one Budget, but it can—and must—begin addressing the assets presenting the highest safety, compliance and service delivery risks.
Question Five – “When will the AMP reach a level of maturity where it can reliably inform planning documents and budgets?”
The AMP already performs an important strategic informing role. It assists the Shire to identify asset pressures, service risks and future renewal requirements, and it informs the Strategic Community Plan, Corporate Business Plan, Long-Term Financial Plan and Annual Budget.
However, the AMP should not be represented as a perfect or stand-alone replacement program.
Strategic asset information must be supplemented by current asset-specific evidence, including:
- mechanical and structural condition;
- maintenance and failure history;
- operating hours and utilisation;
- safety and compliance risk;
- remaining component life;
- service criticality;
- market pricing; and
- whole-of-life cost.
The proposed comprehensive review in 2027 (which was planned for the 2026/27 FY, however governance changes at the Shire and the Emergency and Recovery responses have delayed this work), together with the recommended development of a ten-year Plant and Fleet Renewal Strategy before preparation of the 2027/28 Budget, will provide a clearer, risk-ranked and financially modelled pathway for managing the remaining renewal backlog.
However, it must be noted that the AMP is sufficiently reliable to support strategic decision making and long-term planning at a portfolio level. The Shire will continue to improve its condition information, renewal forecasting, lifecycle costing, data quality and financial modelling for individual asset decisions.