As a former Councillor on the Abbot-led Council which introduced the Tourism Levy in 2000, I am well aware of the parameters and conditions under which it operated. It is now time that a few facts are considered in the face of some fairly creative allegations regarding current Tourism Noosa funding arrangements which were introduced in 2021 when the former Tourism Levy was summarily terminated.
It is my view that If Noosa Council is to demonstrate that it is actually an ethical and transparent organisation, then it should re-introduce the Tourism Levy in the 25/26 Budget. The imminent completion of the Destination Management Strategy makes this even more imperative.
As people may or may not know, the Local Government Act requires that levies are transparent, fit for purpose and underwritten by a clear policy regarding how funds may be spent.
There is currently a campaign which asserts that ordinary Noosa ratepayers are paying for the funds disbursed to Tourism Noosa by Noosa Council. Nothing could be further from the truth, as perhaps those responsible for this campaign know. Back in 2021, instead of the levy, Council introduced a rates schedule with differential (higher) rates to apply to tourism properties, and this differential was to fund the $2.52M disbursement to Tourism Noosa.
Even a cursory look at the 2024/25 rates schedule demonstrates that “transitory accommodation” is charged at almost twice the rate that non-transitory accommodation is charged. For example, Non-Strata Residential – 5 to 9 Residences pays 0.2736 cents in the dollar, with a minimum general rate of $6,812. Non-Strata Residential Transitory Accommodation – 5 to 9 Residences is charged 0.4102 cents in the dollar, with a minimum general rate of $13,625. Non-Strata Residential – greater than 30 Residences is charged 0.2736 cents in the dollar, with a minimum general rate of $40,874. In contrast, Non-Strata Residential Transitory Accommodation – greater than 30 Residences is charged 0.4102 cents in the dollar and a minimum general rate of $81,748, more than twice the minimum general rate for non-transitory accommodation in this category.
Under the current arrangement, it is simply not possible for either general ratepayers or tourism businesses to identify how much funds these differential rates accrue and whether general revenue is propping up the tourism industry, as the critics claim or whether these properties are raising more than the $2.52M being disbursed. With property values rising over the last two years, I suspect it is the latter. The change from collecting funds via a levy versus bundling them up in general rates has enormous significance, since the Local Government Act specifically requires that levy funds be used for the purpose described in the Budget documents. Funds collected via general rates go into general revenue and have no such protection for any parties.
Like all of the other levies which Council manages, a tourism levy would be clearly delineated and transparent to inspection (and also strictly regulated regarding how the funds could be spent). Council could easily integrate the goals of the Destination Management Plan into the requirements for levy expenditure. In contrast, the current model is neither transparent nor ethical.
To satisfy the concerns of both general and tourism ratepayers, the best course of action for Council would be to re-introduce the Tourism Levy. That way everyone would know who is funding what and Council could ensure quality control through a levy policy and an adult and collaborative partnership with the industry.
Vivien Griffin
