600 words (7 minutes reading time) by Lancing Farrell

The two previous posts on model collapse and local government have prompted me to think about what has happened in the sector in the last few years. The sudden increase in Ministerial interventions does seem to indicate that something has changed. It may be more than just the introduction of rate capping in 2016.

I started asking colleagues what they think is happening. Unsurprisingly, several had views on what has happened, although no one was definitive. Everyone has anecdotal information from their council. I will have a go at describing the views told to me.

The first colleague reiterated the view put forward by Tim Whistler, that Covid prevented councillors building relationships with each other. It also affected the induction for newly elected councillors, which can be important in clarifying the responsibilities of a councillor, the Council, and the CEO and staff. Roles and responsibilities are cited in Ministerial Terms of Reference in almost all interventions.

They also suggested that the change from a 3-year electoral term to a 4-year term, which occurred in 2008, could be a factor. They felt that the additional year is tiring for councillors and strains relationships. This might be a factor if ministerial interventions mainly occur in the last year of each electoral term. Only 1 intervention has been made in the last year of an electoral cycle since 2016.

One colleague talked about the impact of legislative change. The new Local Government Act clearly defines the role of a councillor. This is a new addition, and the old Act only covered the role of a Council. It provides clarity and has prompted a realisation that councillors only have power to participate in the collective decisions of the council to set strategic direction through strategic documents. The role of the CEO remains largely unchanged, but it now stands in stark contrast to those of a councillor. The CEO has the power to manage day-to-day operations and direct council staff. Conflicts over councillor interactions with staff have also been cited as a factor in almost all interventions.

The popularity of social media and the connectedness of people was put forward by one colleague. People can now easily let others know about their concerns and put pressure on councillors over issues without waiting for the local paper to pick up the story. In conjunction with what appears to be a general societal decline in civility, and a view that public figures are fair game, I can see social media pressure being a factor in creating circumstances that lead to Ministerial intervention.

Finally, there seems to have been a change in the people being elected as councillors. Many women were elected to council in 2020 and this was heralded as a sign of improved gender equity in the sector.  According to Local Government Victoria, 272 women were elected in 2020, the most in Australian history. There has also been a ‘tree/sea change’ underway for the last decade as baby boomers retire out of cities. Changing demographics in rural townships might explain the large number of rural councils requiring interventions. More women and ‘city folk’ being elected has probably put a spotlight on the behaviour of some of the long-term, traditional councillors.

Societal changes are always reflected in our political system. Usually, the system is robust enough to adapt and accommodate those changes without failing. Perhaps that is the real challenge here, to understand what is driving the dysfunctional behaviour by councillors that needs Ministerial intervention? 

If the root causes were understood, perhaps interventions could be avoided.