Should Liverpool Ratepayers Get a Discount for Paying Early? Here’s Why I Said No — And What I Think We Should Do Instead.
Posted by Deputy Mayor Peter Harle | 4 June 2026
Let me be upfront about something before I start.
I know the cost of living is brutal right now. Fuel prices are punishing families every single week. Groceries, energy bills, school costs, rent — it all keeps climbing. I hear it from Liverpool residents constantly, and I want you to know: I take it seriously. It weighs on me when I make decisions in that chamber.
So when a proposal came before yesterday’s Governance Committee to offer a 5% discount on Council rates for ratepayers who pay their full annual rates bill upfront, I didn’t dismiss it lightly. It was put forward with genuine good intentions — to reward residents who do the right thing and pay on time.
But after careful consideration, I voted against it. And I want to explain exactly why — in plain English, no jargon — because you deserve to understand how your elected representatives make these decisions.
What Was Actually Proposed?
Councillor Peter Ristevski put forward a Notice of Motion back in February 2025 suggesting that Liverpool City Council offer a 5% discount to any ratepayer who pays their entire year’s rates in one lump sum by the first due date (end of August each year).
On the surface, it sounds reasonable — even generous. Reward people who pay early. Encourage better cash flow for Council. Simple.
But when our Chief Financial Officer did the detailed analysis, a very different picture emerged.
The Numbers Don’t Lie. Here’s the reality:
Liverpool Council issues approximately 85,000 rate notices every year
Around 14% of ratepayers currently pay their full annual rates upfront by the first due date
The remaining 86% pay by quarterly instalments — or weekly, fortnightly, or monthly direct debit arrangements
That 5% discount sounds small. But applied across all those upfront payers, it would cost Liverpool ratepayers $1.4 million every single year — even if not one additional person changed their payment behaviour.
And if the discount encouraged more people to pay upfront (which is the whole point), that cost rises to an estimated $1.4 million to $1.9 million annually.
To put that in perspective: Council is currently projecting a surplus of just $800,000 for this financial year. This discount would not just wipe out that surplus — it would put us in deficit. That means cuts to services, cuts to infrastructure, or rate increases down the track. None of those outcomes help Liverpool families.
Here’s the Part That Really Troubled Me
I want to be honest about what made me most uncomfortable with this proposal — and it’s not the cost alone.
Who actually benefits from this discount?
Think about it. To receive a 5% discount, you need to pay your entire year’s rates in one hit. For the average Liverpool household, that’s somewhere between $1,500 and $2,500 or more — all at once, in August.
Who can afford to do that?
Not the pensioner on a fixed income carefully managing every dollar.
Not the young family already stretched thin by mortgage repayments and fuel costs.
Not the small business owner watching their margins shrink.
Not the renter who’s just scraped together a bond for a new place.
The people who can pay their full rates upfront in one lump sum are, by definition, the people who have that kind of cash available. They are — and I say this without judgement — generally our more financially comfortable residents.
Our own CFO’s report put it plainly:
“The discount would explicitly reward those who are already able to pay their rates in full by the due date… Many in the 86% group are more likely to be on fixed incomes or facing cash flow constraints — pensioners, lower-income families and small businesses with tighter cash cycles.”
And here’s the part that really gave me pause: large corporations and government agencies — including organisations like the Department of Housing that own significant property portfolios in Liverpool — would also qualify for this discount. We’d be giving rate discounts to property investors and government departments, funded by the same community that’s struggling to fill their petrol tanks. Aren’t we in this together?
It seems unfair, un-Australian, and frankly, fairness matters to me deeply.
If Liverpool City Council has $1.4 to $1.9 million to spend on helping ratepayers, I believe that money should go to:
Expanded hardship programs for residents genuinely struggling to pay their rates
More flexible payment plan options — weekly, fortnightly, monthly — so families can spread the cost in a way that suits their budget
Financial counselling services to help residents navigate cost of living pressures
Better pensioner support and concession frameworks
Community services and infrastructure that benefit every single Liverpool resident, not just 14%
That’s where I’d rather see the money go. Not to those who already have the financial capacity to pay thousands of dollars upfront.
The people who pay by instalments aren’t doing so because they’re irresponsible. They’re doing so because they have to. Paying quarterly is how they manage their household budget. Penalising them — even indirectly — by giving discounts to others while they receive nothing is not a reward for good behaviour. It’s a penalty for not being wealthy enough to pay upfront.
My Decision
As an independent Councillor, I vote based on what I genuinely believe is in the best interests of the families and ratepayers of Liverpool — not along party lines, not based on political pressure, and not based on what’s popular in the moment.
Sometimes that means making decisions that some people won’t agree with. I accept that.
In this case, the evidence was clear:
- The cost is unsustainable — $1.4M–$1.9M annually
- The benefit is inequitable — 14% of ratepayers (the most financially comfortable) benefit; 86% receive nothing
- The timing is wrong — cost of living pressures mean most families cannot pay upfront even if they wanted to
- Better alternatives exist — targeted hardship support would help those who actually need it
I voted no. And I’m confident it was the right decision for Liverpool’s families.
What I’m Asking Council to Do Instead
A review of our hardship assistance programs — are they accessible, well-promoted, and adequately funded?
Improved payment flexibility — can we make it easier for residents to pay in smaller, more frequent instalments?
Proactive outreach to residents who may be eligible for pensioner concessions or hardship support but don’t know it
A financial counselling partnership with community organisations already working with Liverpool families
A Final Word
I know fuel prices are hurting Liverpool families right now. I know every dollar counts. I know that when you’re choosing between filling the tank and buying groceries, a Council rates bill feels like one more impossible demand.
That’s exactly why I couldn’t support a policy that would spend nearly $2 million of ratepayers’ money on discounts for people who don’t need them — while the families who are genuinely struggling receive absolutely nothing.
Liverpool deserves better than that. And I’ll keep fighting for policies that actually make a difference to the people who need it most.
As always, I welcome your feedback. All Residents are welcome to attend the LCIT Public forum held on the first Thursday of every month at Carnes Hill Community Centre.
Full details here. https://lcit.com.au/meeting-calendar/.
Peter Harle
Deputy Mayor, Liverpool City Council
Independent Councillor
The views expressed in this post are those of Councillor Peter Harle in his capacity as an elected independent Councillor and do not represent the official position of Liverpool City Council.
Mobile: 0412 736 956
Email: peter@lcit.com.au
Website: www.lcit.com.au