Cr Jenny McGregor moved that the 5.5 per cent increase be approved, keeping rural Unimproved Value properties, Gross Rental Value Special Rural/Vacant, Industrial/Commercial, and UV Rural/Commercial equal in contrast to former higher rating systems for properties such as wineries.

“If you live in a rural property you are more than likely to make money from that rural property whether you’re selling milk, cheese, olives, grapes, whatever,” she said.

“You might be making more money than your neighbours but it’s no justification for higher rates.

“You’re clearly not going to get any better services.

“It’s highly unfair to punish people for trying to make a living.”

Cr Brian Middleton agreed, saying they should not use rates as “a de facto planning tool”.

“I think 5.5 is a good balance, a sound compromise,” he said.

Cr Mike Smart, however, spoke against the motion, saying in light of the shire’s 10-year financial management plan they would be able to benefit the community more with a six per cent increase.

He said some big wineries were getting their rates cut in half, and the shire would face a total $70,000 in lost revenue, with ratepayers bearing the brunt of it.

“It doesn’t seem equitable,” he said.

“It doesn’t concur with the guidelines set down.”

Cr Rosemary Taylor disagreed, saying the Rural-zoned properties running commercial enterprises brought tourists and money into the shire.

“They’ve been brave enough to spend money on a rural property, we can’t make up little categories, I think this is the most equitable way of doing things,” she said.

“We do see that people are going through hard times.

“Our CEO has saved a good amount of money for us, I support 5.5 per cent.”

Cr Lyn Serventy spoke against the motion, saying that when she had a cellar door, she did not consider herself hard done by having rates slightly higher than her neighbours.