This is the second in a series of articles by Ron Exiner* looking at approaches Local Government can take to cement its place as a vital sphere of government for communities as well as an equal partner in our Federation.
For Local Government to be sustainable, it must have a governance model which is sustainable.
Local Government began as a system of roads boards. Its underlying principle seemed to be that landowners should have some responsibility to pay for and have an input into those services that were relevant to their property interests. And as a system for ensuring the well heeled could be involved in this important, but very limited program, the model of a voluntary body which met monthly or so and served on the basis of a combination of noblesse oblige and self interest, it probably worked well.
The current Local Government model has developed from this very basic beginning. In its transformation to the third sphere of government in Australia, it has adopted many of the characteristics of a full level of government. Most importantly, it now has the trappings and responsibilities of a fully democratic and accountable level of government.
However, the extension of the franchise to one of full democracy has fundamentally changed the model and not all the rest of the parts of it have kept pace. This disparity has had the effect of putting more and more pressure on the model.
The fully representative nature of Local Government, along with its wide range of responsibilities means that the volunteer concept, which still underpins the model in most States, is no longer sustainable. It is not sustainable because it limits the talent pool and the capacity of councils to reflect the diversity of their communities. And the quality of Councillors is critical to the long term sustainability of Local Government. Being a Councillor is much closer to being a profession than it is to being a volunteer.
It is not sustainable to expect a part time volunteer to be accountable to many thousands of constituents (and Local Government reform always has the impact of increasing these numbers). It is not sustainable for these volunteers to be directly accessible, 24 hours a day and seven days a week to constituents via phone, email or letter. It is also not sustainable for a part time volunteer to be one of a small group directly accountable for annual budgets which range from a few to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Similarly, the vitally important, complex and stressful balancing act of being a legally constituted planning authority, community representative and advocate all at once does not lend itself to a volunteer model. It is not reasonable to restrict the pool from which Councillors are drawn to those people who for whatever reason can manage on being paid an allowance of a few thousand dollars for 20 plus hours per week’s work and 24/7 accessibility.
Is this maximising the talent pool and ensuring that Councillors are representative of their community? Surely members of ‘working families’ are excluded! This is not an argument for full time Councillors. But to be sustainable, cope with the demands and stresses and put in the time required to do the job properly, Councillors must be remunerated in a way that makes being a Councillor a legitimate part time job.
Two recent State Government auspiced reviews addressed the issue of Councillor remuneration and came up with significantly different outcomes.
In Queensland, Local Government reform was accompanied by the establishment of an independent tribunal to make an annual determination on Mayoral and Councillor remuneration. It explicitly rejected the concept that being a Councillor is akin to a voluntary activity and made much of the broader responsibilities and accountabilities which Councillors have, particularly in larger amalgamated councils. It linked the new rates of Councillor remuneration to State and Federal MP salaries and the outcomes are proper salaries that reflect the roles and responsibilities of the position.
Whether Councillors will be full or part time is for individual municipalities to determine.
The Victorian State Government, in contrast, has just missed an opportunity to put Local Government on a more sustainable basis by continuing the volunteer model in its recent Councillor remuneration decision. Its panel stated that State and Federal MPs have a significantly broader range of responsibilities (than do Councillors) that can have a greater impact (on people’s lives). It compares the responsibility and impact to boards of government business enterprises or Statutory Authorities.
I suggest that the role of a board member does not include the accountabilities and accessibility of the Councillor role and that the difference between the roles of Councillors and backbenchers from other spheres of government is not marked, if at all.
Local Governments have not always been their own best friends on this issue. In particular, it is self defeating for Victorian Local Governments to leave the vacuum there for the State Government to legislate to ensure that Councillors are provided with basic communication resources by their Local Governments. This hardly suggests a sphere of government that has sufficient confidence in itself to require proper resourcing. This should have been done by simple council resolution.
The Local Government model, with its lack of Westminster conventions, is a very complex and difficult governance model. It relies so heavily on the goodwill, talent and capacity to cooperate between Councillors. It requires that the pool from which Councillors are drawn be as wide and representative as possible. Other spheres of government discovered that to attract representatives from beyond the independently wealthy, remuneration was necessary. The third level of government in Australia is no different.
Local Governments have gotten themselves into difficulties from time to time in terms of accountability and transparency. They should not shy away from addressing these issues. They have also frequently become convenient whipping boys of State Governments, often for political reasons when State Governments are trying to obscure their own shortcomings with regard to such matters as planning, infrastructure and services.
Local Government reform has, is, or will be taking place throughout Australia. An inevitable outcome is larger municipalities with Councillors being elected by and being accountable to larger constituencies. Responsibilities and accountabilities grow commensurately.
To be sustainable, the political part of Local Government needs to be drawn from a pool that reflects its communities and maximises the talent available. Participants need to be able to devote sufficient time and energy to meeting the challenges and responsibilities, while still being able to have a work/life balance. Remuneration and structure need to facilitate this.
It is in the hands of State Governments to walk the talk on strengthening Local Government. Queensland at least has taken up the challenge.
The others are not even being asked to put their money where their mouth is. They merely have to facilitate a situation in which communities can determine the extent and cost of their local political representation. And it is up to the councils to work to get the respect and support that they deserve.
*Ron Exiner has held senior management positions in corporate, executive and financial services in various Victorian councils, spanning more than 20 years. As Director of Exintel Pty Ltd, a consultancy focusing on governance, strategic planning and policy development, he prepared the Good Governance Guide (2004) for the Good Governance Advisory Group (Victorian Government, Municipal Association of Victoria and Victorian Local Governance Association), and Excellence in Governance for Local Government (2005) for CPA Australia.
