Hansard debates

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (14:30): I rise to speak on the Local Government Bill 2019 and will be supporting amendments that the coalition will put forward. As a former councillor, I am a big supporter of effective local government. For me, politics works best where accountability is greatest. The link between the people and their representatives is what determines the quality of local democracy, enhances the legitimacy of decisions taken and wins the support and trust of the community itself. It is important then that the legislation that underpins local government is fit for purpose. While I support what this bill will do for good governance, I share a number of reservations with my colleagues, which I will come to address.

I want to bring the perspective of regional Victoria to this debate, for while urban and rural councils may have much in common there are significant differences, which require recognition in the law. Since my election, I have had briefings with the mayor, councillors and CEOs of 23 of the 24 municipalities across Western Victoria Region, and I will be visiting the remaining councils soon. I have made a point of discussing with them not simply local priorities but their views on the operation of local councils and the interaction of the three levels of government which make up our system, which in recent times has become very blurred. Almost without exception they have shared my concern on the confusion of overlapping responsibilities, cost-shifting by the state government and the inequality between metropolitan and rural councils. This goes to Mr Hayes’s point about rates: the inequity of the rate in the dollar in a rural council compared to a metropolitan urban council is extreme, and it is important that the legislation makes improvements where appropriate and does not create new problems or exacerbate existing ones.

My first point then is on the legislation’s default assumption that single-member wards be adopted across Victoria. While this may work acceptably in urban councils with high population density, it is poorly suited to smaller regional councils. Even in metropolitan areas single-councillor wards risk compromising good governance by replacing decisions taken from the area’s common good with those made for members’ narrower ward interests. Two-thirds of Victorian councils support the multimember model not just for this reason but for practical reasons too—sometimes as simple as there still being someone for residents to contact should a member be away or otherwise unavailable. Time and again this concern has been raised with me by small local councils, and I have to say the minister’s proposed answer has been treated with uncertainty and in some cases suspicion. The solution is apparently that councils can apply to the minister to retain multimember wards by specific exemption. This surely cannot be the best way. If the system is to change at all, I am supportive of an amendment that small regional councils which do not want single-member wards should be specifically exempted in the act, not just on ministerial discretion at some later date.

The second argument I make is related and concerns clause 27 of the bill—namely, the mandating of the appointment of a deputy mayor for all councils. I simply cannot understand the purpose of making this mandatory. Surely it should be up to local councillors to decide. What I do understand and can foresee is the extra expense and the potential waste of ratepayers money. I am strongly supportive of an amendment to make the appointment to this role at councils’ discretion. It is extraordinary, frankly, that anything else is being proposed, and I suspect it is a symptom of legislation based on the experience of—and interests of—larger metropolitan councils.

On the subject of efficiency, I think it is important to recognise the incredible work done by so many councillors across country Victoria. They work hard in most cases to keep down the costs of their councils, to cut waste and to reduce the burden on their ratepayers, many of whom are farmers. When I was a Corangamite councillor, soon after my election we voted on the budget. I was amazed to find that that council was in debt, but we changed things and that next budget was in surplus—millions in surplus. We spent more on roads than ever before. We ended spending on services that should be funded by state government—services like education and health. They are a state government responsibility; they should not be the burden of ratepayers. But these councils are increasingly burdened by cost-shifting nonsense, especially compliance issues that they have to endure and ratepayers have to fund. It costs millions of dollars in small local councils to fund the compliance regime that is imposed on them by state government. I have always said to local councils that they have got to learn to say no as well—no to state government policy implementation proposals that they did not stand for or propagate but that the state government imposes on them.

Many councillors serve for little reward. They take less than they are entitled to by way of expenses because they understand better than any other layer of government the strain that paying the rates can place on their hard-pressed neighbours. They see it firsthand. For them it is utterly alien for a council to spend a dollar more than it needs to, and I salute them for their thrift. Others could learn from it. I will therefore be pleased to support an amendment which would prohibit councillors using ratepayers money to campaign on areas over which they have no responsibility or jurisdiction. It is an absurdity for local government to spend money lobbying government. Local councils are elected by the people to perform a specific role, and for the council to take it upon itself to go beyond this is quite wrong. We have seen in recent months a number of mainly urban councils financing campaigns of a distinctly political flavour in areas completely unrelated to the services they are meant to provide. Republicanism, the green movement, climate change—these are just some of the ideological causes adopted by councils and advanced by ratepayers cash. This bill provides the perfect opportunity to restrict that behaviour, and I would urge members to support it.

I would like to move to clause 43, which concerns the indemnities provided for volunteers serving on committees. The concern here addressed with a potential amendment is that the wide provision of indemnity to volunteers present at section 76 of the current 1989 act is not mirrored by the legislation before us today. Those who serve on committees to manage community assets—a hall or a sporting facility or any other council-owned property—must continue to be protected. I think we can all agree that the dedicated efforts of local volunteers keep our communities going—whether they are on hall committees, pool committees, sporting clubs or whatever. I particularly mention Mary and Peter Hay, who have helped for years to run the Weerite hall committee. It would be nonsensical to discourage the efforts of people like these, and I hope that this is just a discrepancy which can be rectified.

I would like to draw attention also to another fundamental proposed change in clauses 241 and 242. Here, the effect of the new legislation would be to remove the automatic registration of ratepayers on the electoral roll in the area of their property. While residents would continue to be automatically enrolled, other rate-paying owners would not, breaking the fundamental historic democratic link between taxation and representation. It is clear that there is no technical requirement for this change; it is simply a deliberate political choice on the part of the minister. In some parts of Western Victoria Region the numbers affected could be substantial. For the reason I have outlined, I consider it unnecessary and damaging to democracy and to proper inclusive government in the communities involved.

Finally, I want to raise another issue, which some colleagues may have heard me mention once or twice before. It is the fact that in important ways this bill fails to distinguish between rural councils with low populations and limited resources and larger, often metropolitan, councils with more residents and more rates. The bill makes a number of bureaucratic demands on councils without providing any resources to meet them. It is the latest in a seemingly endless list of demands on local councils. Some of these may seem slight to officials in Melbourne with endless resources, but their cumulative effect is extremely damaging to smaller councils, which do not have access to the same revenue stream as their larger equivalents.

Clause 55, for example, demands councils adopt and maintain a community engagement policy, which must involve the extensive exercise of ‘deliberative engagement practices’ with the community, addressing ‘any matters prescribed by the regulations’. Leaving aside the failure to define deliberative engagement and the lack of any detail here on what the regulations may end up being, which is another significant and concerning flaw in many sections of this bill, even the most basic implementation will be difficult for smaller councils.

Clauses 88, 90, 91 and 92 also require a community vision, a council plan, a financial plan and an asset plan and now a gender equality provision—all to be developed within the same potentially onerous consultation requirements. While every new small demand made of local councils may seem trivial in itself, each one could be the straw which breaks the camel’s back for small local councils in regional areas. And where is the consideration for these councils? The Borough of Queenscliff with some 2660 electors is treated in the same way as the City of Greater Geelong, with more than 195 000 electors.

I would like to end my contribution here with this plea, yet again, to all those involved to consider the impact not just of cost-shifting but of regulation and reporting requirements on the small rural councils of Western Victoria Region and the squeezed ratepayers who ultimately pay for it. A one-size-fits-all solution simply does not work, and this legislation is just the latest in a long line of bills which does far too little to recognise that. I have certainly been contacted by councils who are very horrified at the fact that they have had basically no consultation on many aspects of this bill and the fact that regulations will be imposed which nobody knows about. I finish here by saying that we will be moving amendments, which hopefully will make a slight difference to this bill and make it better to some degree.