Water rates consultation “biased and manipulative” says Brooks

An attendee at a Central Coast Council public consultation on water rates held on May 1 has complained to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART), saying inaccurate information was provided by Council.

Kevin Brooks said residents were informed that water rates will increase by at least 17-22% (plus inflation) in 2026/27, regardless of any feedback received during the consultation.

“The only reason for the ‘consultation’ is to find out if ratepayers are prepared to pay even more on top of 17-22% – in return for promised service improvements,” Brooks said.

“Water rates have already increased by 51% in just three years, yet independent customer satisfaction surveys by IPART suggest services have not improved.

“We already pay significantly more than Sydney and the Hunter for a worse service.

kevin brooks

“Central Coast Water must be one of the most poorly managed water utilities in the developed world.

“Throwing more and more money at a poorly managed and inefficient organisation will not bring about improvements.

“They don’t have a revenue problem, they have a management problem.

“Rather than slugging ratepayers yet again, they need to address management performance, efficiency, productivity and culture.”

Brooks said the forum itself was “biased and manipulative”.

“Council management presented biased and inaccurate information, then asked loaded questions to achieve a predetermined outcome,” he said.

“Historically, Central Coast prices have always been compared to Sydney and Hunter as these are the ‘big three’ water utilities in NSW; the only ones with scale.

“This time, however, because Central Coast is now far more expensive than Sydney and Hunter, Council told the forum to compare their prices with two much smaller water utilities with only a quarter as many properties connected.”

Brooks said attendees were also provided with inaccurate information about current service levels.

“The effect of this was that the improvements they promised in return for even higher prices above the 17-22% increase would actually deliver lower service levels than currently provided,” he said.

“For example, they promised to reduce complaints to 5.6 per 1,000 properties in return for even higher bills, but complaints are currently running at three per 1,000 properties, so they can actually deliver a worse service for the extra money.”

Brooks said despite “affordability” being voted as one of the top three values by customers in 2023 and 2024, it was not included in the top three values presented to the forum.

He also asked where the decision for a 17-22% hike was taken, and why the proposal was not presented to a public Council meeting where reports could be scrutinised.

“Council is saying it is applying to IPART for a minimum of 17-22% increase regardless of the current consultation,” he said.

“That means a decision must have been taken somewhere in Council to that effect.

“Decisions like that should be approved by a public Council meeting where reports can be scrutinised by the public – but that hasn’t happened.

“What does this say about governance, accountability, and transparency?

“Are these decisions now being taken in secret briefings, called ‘workshops’ to evade public scrutiny?”

A spokesperson for Council said Brooks had not written to Council with a formal complaint.

“If he wishes to write directly to Council, Council will respond accordingly,” the spokesperson said.

“Council, through an external consultant, invited the community to provide input and feedback over the past month through face-to-face pop-ups, online feedback and forums for invited participants.

“The feedback provided will now be collated and considered for the final plans.”