Submissions to the Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors

To whom it may concern,

I do NOT support the proposed increase in allowances for mayors, deputy mayors and councillors in this period of economic uncertainty. Local Government representatives should not be seeking any increases that puts added pressure on us the rate payers.

Regards

Anthony

Anthony S

PDF 60.13 KB

(opens in a new window)

12 August 2021

Submission to the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal – Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors

1. About Brimbank

Brimbank is located in Melbourne’s west and is a large culturally diverse municipality covering twenty-five new and established suburbs. There are a few reasonably wealthy suburbs, however, Brimbank is mostly made up of suburbs considered to be disadvantaged. Brimbank has a SEIFA score (2016 Census) of 921 with 443 LGAs less disadvantaged¹ and is ranked the second most disadvantaged municipality in metropolitan Melbourne by the ABS².

Brimbank also has a chequered history. The Council was sacked in 2008 and has been managed by Administrators for eight of the past thirteen years, yet some of the factors which led to the sacking in 2008 are still evident today. In particular, third party intervention from state MPs, who appear to have very close personal relationships with Councillors, endorse and assist council candidates affiliated with their political party and in particular (and of significant concern to residents) the current Mayor who was personally endorsed by a State MP at the last Council election and is now, as residents report, seemingly closely collaborating with the State MP on projects which promote the MP and assist her to do her job within her electorate or promote her leading into next year’s state election, (redacted).

2. Roles of Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors

2.1 Mayor

Residents accept that the role of the Mayor is as outlined in the Local Government Act 2020, Part 2, Division 3, 18(1). However, much to the great concern and utter dismay of residents, it appears that since elected Councils returned in 2016, state political interference has once again creeped in. Brimbank residents want their Councillors, and particularly their Mayor, to be free of any third party interference so that they perform their duties independently and solely with the interests of the ratepayers and residents that they represent in mind, not unrelated third parties, and particularly not government MPs who should be using their own (extensive) resources to support and represent their constituents.

(redacted)

Additionally, due to the issues highlighted above, residents believe that the Brimbank Mayor does not have the appropriate level of ability or skills to undertake the role of Mayor as identified in the Local Government Act 2020, Part 2, Division 3, 18 (1) (a) to (i). This is very concerning currently for Brimbank residents (redacted). Residents believe that this may be severely impacting on the ability of the current Mayor to advocate on behalf of the Brimbank community effectively and independently and has also severely diluted confidence within the community. The Mayor currently holds the Advocacy Portfolio, yet there are so many examples of poor advocacy being raised by residents which are negatively impacting on the community, including the Barro Landfill air pollution, the Sunshine Super Hub, Albion station, the Brimbank Aquatic and Wellness Centre lack of State funding, Sydenham Road, Taylors Road and Calder Highway upgrades, to name a few.

A particular concern that Brimbank residents have had and continue to have with their elected Mayors is the lack of transparency which is often evident. In particular, and something that is continually raised by residents is (redacted) and then provides vague reasons as to why the questions are disallowed. These are real concerns that Brimbank residents often raise and they believe it is not acceptable that they just get ‘batted’ away because they may be uncomfortable or embarrassing for the Mayor or other councillors to answer. Residents also believe that this conduct may contravene requirements under the Local Government Act 2020 and the Local Government (Governance and Integrity) Regulations 2020 Schedule 1—Standards of conduct Section 4 (2).

Despite Council implementing a comprehensive Public Transparency Policy in 2020 as required under LGA 2020, Part 3, Division 1, 57, questions asked by concerned residents relating to the current Mayor’s ability to advocate to the Victorian government on contentious issues, given her close personal relationship with State government MPs, are often not answered based on them being ‘defamatory’, which is incorrect and unacceptable and potentially contradicts the transparency and good governance requirements under the Local Government Act 2020. The relationship between the Mayor and a State MP is well known with residents observing them posting videos and other content across social media platforms etc., including the MP endorsing the current Mayor as a council candidate at the last election and the Mayor’s family working for the state MP, so it’s no secret and yet whenever concerned residents ask questions at Council meetings which may hint that (redacted). This response and lack of transparency and good governance builds discontent within the Brimbank community and could very well be viewed as unacceptable conduct under the Local Government (Governance and Integrity) Regulations 2020.

2.2 Deputy Mayor

Residents accept that the role of the Deputy Mayor is as outlined in the Local Government Act 2020, Part 2, Division 3, 21. However, once again,(redacted) etc. Given the number of issues which currently exist in Brimbank requiring strong competent advocacy, we would expect that the Deputy Mayor would be able to assist the Mayor on important advocacy issues, but unfortunately that has not occurred in the present Council.

2.3 Councillors

Residents accept that the role of Councillors is as outlined in the Local Government Act 2020, Part 2, Division 5, 28. (redacted) to advocate effectively for residents or to manage a large business/budget. These include an inability to communicate effectively and competently, public profile, community engagement, ability to lead and influence, commercial and/or financial acumen etc.

Residents report that Brimbank has a few independent Councillors who are currently doing a great job working for the community with one particular standout who is a second term Councillor who engages very well with the community, is very well respected and is strongly advocating and supporting residents severely affected by the Barro Landfill fires which are impacting on residents’ health and safety through poor air quality and noise pollution. Given the severity of this issue, as surely nothing is more important to the Mayor and Councillors than the health, safety and wellbeing of Brimbank residents, residents expect that all Brimbank Councillors and particularly the Mayor, would be out there competently and effectively advocating for urgent action, however, residents report that it appears to have been left to just one of the ward Councillors. Residents are also concerned that even the one other Councillor from the same ward affected by the Barro landfill issue has not bothered to attend community forums or show support to these affected residents publicly in any way which is deeply concerning for a proper functioning Council and potentially contravenes the Local Government (Governance and Integrity) Regulations 2020, Schedule 1, Section 2 (d) (Standards of Conduct) which clearly states that in the performance of their role, a Councillor must be “responsive to the diversity of interests and needs of the municipal community”, that they represent.

Furthermore, residents have observed that when Councillors are asked questions by residents both at Council meetings and on social media as to why they are not advocating strongly, effectively, and competently for particular projects or issues, the response is often that they are advocating in the background. This response is inadequate and unacceptable and in fact contravenes Council’s own Public Transparency Policy and the transparency requirements under the Local Government Act 2020 and it is obvious that these Councillors and the Mayor are not aware of this. It also impacts severely on residents’ confidence that Councillors are actually doing their job as this is not always obvious in Council meetings where again residents report that Councillors often don’t appear to be across issues, waffle on inexplicably without reference to the issue being discussed, don’t raise motions, and appear to make little contribution. (redacted) which is valuable and fundamental to our democracy and what Brimbank residents demand!

3. Purpose of allowances

Municipalities such as Brimbank are large businesses which require appropriately qualified and skilled Councillors to manage the business effectively for the good of all ratepayers and residents while always ensuring that rates are kept low, wasteful spending is minimised and accountability is increased.

We as residents believe that the purpose of allowances paid to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors is to reimburse them for the time and effort they are putting into managing the municipality as community representatives. There is no doubt that if taken seriously and done properly, a significant amount of work is required by Councillors. Residents report that they have no issues with Councillors and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor receiving suitable compensation for the roles they are required to perform but when they don’t competently perform their duties to a satisfactory level, residents don’t believe they should continue to be compensated at the highest level possible, as is currently the case.

4. Factors to be considered when allocating councils to allowance categories

Residents don’t believe that the current system of allocating allowances based on population and revenue is adequate. Brimbank falls within Category 3 based on the current criteria which means that allowances are set at the highest range and at the beginning of each term for a four year period. This is despite the fact that Brimbank has many suburbs within it which are considered underprivileged with a third of residents earning under $500 per week, which is less than one third the average weekly salary for males ($1,770.30)³ and over 30,000 residents (approximately 15% of the population) living on social security in the form of an aged pension or Newstart allowance⁴.

Furthermore, residents have observed that Brimbank Councils seem to always set the allowances at the top end of the set range, with little to no regard or consideration of the underprivileged nature of the municipality they are managing.

Residents consider the current range of allowances to be appropriate and reflect the time and commitment required to perform the duties effectively. However, residents strongly feel that additional criteria needs to be incorporated to consider the demographic and wealth profile of the municipality and to ensure Councillors/Mayor/Deputy Mayor actually have the skills and ability to perform those required duties they are being paid for and that they do so consistently for the entire term. Residents propose that an annual review of performance by the Mayor and Councillors be implemented to encourage them to meet that required performance level on behalf of the residents.

5. Superannuation

Brimbank Councillors and Mayor already receive an amount equivalent to the Superannuation Guarantee Contribution (10% for 2021/22) above their allowances. This means in the case of the Mayor, an additional of amount of $10,000 is paid and for each Councillor an additional amount of $3,444.40 is paid for superannuation. Residents would prefer that the allowances paid are inclusive of superannuation particularly given that Brimbank Councillors and Mayor currently receive allowances within the highest Category 3 and pay themselves at the highest end within that category.

6. Proposal to address allowances paid

Resident’s support and believe it is imperative that allowances are reviewed annually, based on set KPIs for each Councillor, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. It is important in the service of the public to incorporate and consider individual skills and qualifications, ability to effectively and competently communicate, engage with the community, advocate for the municipality, success in managing their respective portfolios, commercial and financial acumen and in the case of the Mayor, to effectively and competently garner respect within the community, lead and influence.

Residents believe if these additional criteria were incorporated in the setting of allowances, municipalities such as Brimbank would attract a higher calibre of Councillors that are qualified to perform these duties. Additionally, the Mayor/Deputy Mayor positions would more likely be filled by Councillors who possessed the skills and qualifications to perform these duties due to an increased level of scrutiny, rather than appointment by political parties as a reward.

At present there are many Brimbank residents who have spent years advocating for specific causes/issues/groups within the municipality with proven success and desire to work tirelessly for the Brimbank community without any personal gain. These people have the integrity, skills and qualifications to be excellent community advocates on Council, however Brimbank residents often lament that because they don’t belong to a political party, they do not get the opportunity to do so and the entire Brimbank community is worse off because of that.

Residents propose that a Resident’s Oversight Group be established, which would include the Council CEO, and other appropriate Council officers such as the HR manager, for example, business and community leaders, ratepayer and resident associations etc., that could oversee the annual allowance process and measure previous year’s performance based on set criteria.

This criteria by which councillors and the mayor could be measured against could include (but is not limited to) the following:

• Residents and ratepayers’ feedback – conduct annual online survey.
• Number of Council meetings attended/missed.
• Number of motions put to Council.
• Number of community group meetings attended.
• Management and performance at Council meetings, including transparency, response to community questions and willingness to share information with the community.
• Achievement of set KPIs, including budget management.
• Level of advocacy and community engagement, including through social media platforms.
• Ability to source appropriate funding for infrastructure projects.
• Understanding and adherence to relevant legislation, including Council policies, Local Government Act 2020 and 1989, Equal Opportunity Act 2010, the Local Government (Governance and Integrity) Regulations 2020 and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
• Independence from third parties, such as political parties and state or federal Members of Parliament.

7. Financial impact of varying allowances values for council members

Residents don’t believe that an increase in allowances can be justified at this time and would strongly advocate against any increase.

As already stated, Brimbank is not a wealthy municipality. Additionally, Brimbank has been disproportionately affected by Covid19, both in terms of the number of residents who have caught the disease and also from the numerous lockdowns and restrictions which have destroyed businesses, jobs and livelihoods.

Furthermore, Brimbank does not receive the level of state government funding for infrastructure projects which other municipalities currently enjoy. For example, the Brimbank Aquatic & Wellness Centre has attracted approximately $2 million in Victorian government funding towards this project, estimated to cost in excess of $60 million. Compare this to Victorian government funding of $46 million towards the Gippsland Aquatic Centre (total cost $57 million). This means that ratepayer funds will be overwhelmingly utilised to finance this aquatic centre, and there is no doubt that increased rates and/or less services will result. So if Brimbank ratepayers and residents cannot rely on their Councillors and Mayor to advocate successfully and source appropriate funding for infrastructure projects, in line with other municipalities, we certainly cannot support an increase in the payment of allowances to these Councillors and Mayor.

Due to these factors, residents don’t believe that an increase in allowances paid to Brimbank Councillors and the Mayor/Deputy Mayor can be justified at this time.

Brimbank Ratepayers & Residents Association, Inc.

Brimbank Ratepayers & Residents Association, Inc.

PDF 164.17 KB

(opens in a new window)

---

¹ https://app.remplan.com.au/brimbank‐lga/community/wellbeing/seifa‐relative‐ disadvantageState=gxq1sL!887nSpxLWcdPbreH9awR4sBfVuBb9ibujuAuvuRXA

² https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA21180

³ https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings‐and‐work‐hours/average‐weekly‐earnings‐australia/

⁴ https://dbr.abs.gov.au/region.html?lyr=sa3&rgn=21301

I wish to make my Objection noted, to Any council employee or remunerated person receiving any increase in income at this time.

Chris Mack
Black Rock.

Chris Mack

PDF 59.77 KB

(opens in a new window)

To whom it may concern

There’s no way I support the circus at the City of Yarra getting pay rises.

There’s [sic] spent more time in the headlines for all the wrong reasons instead of representing the ratepayers and residents of the city and Yarra. I’m disgusted that this is even a suggestion.

However feel free to pick up our rubbish weekly and get the rubbish out of the gutters and streets and support the local community of the City of Yarra by getting the Enabler injection room moved out of our community.

We deserve better and they don’t deserve a red cent.

(redacted)

Most of these councillors have not done a thing to help our community!!!

Have an awesome day.

Kindest Regards

Christine Maynard
Managing Director
Summer Kai

Christine Maynard

PDF 173.02 KB

(opens in a new window)

Proposed determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors

Submission from Daniel Kade

(redacted)

(redacted)

Allowances

Having Councillors that are skilled and diverse is important to achieving good community outcomes. The current allowances offered to Councillors creates a barrier to attracting skilled and diverse candidates to this vital community role, as becoming a Councillor means that one would most likely be financially disadvantaged, as those skills attract a much higher price in the labour market.

Ideally Councillors would give their attention to the role full time so that they can consider all of the information and make the best decisions possible. If Councillors must split their time with a second job to receive a livable income then this may affect the quality of decision making at Council and have long term consequences for the community.

The allowance for Councillors should be at a level that allows them to undertake the role full time and does not financially disadvantage somebody if they choose to undertake the role. The exact level of compensation should be discussed further to determine what it should be. Example amounts include:

• an amount equal to the full time minimum salary
• an amount equal to the full time average salary
• an amount equal to the full time salary at the level of skill required for the role

Having an allowance that fairly compensates Councillors for their time and effort not only removes barriers for attracting suitable candidates to stand for Council but also may reduce corruption. If Councillors are not being paid adequately by the rate payer then there may be a higher risk that they will seek income by unlawful means, e.g. making favourable decisions to developers for payment.

Superannuation is a form of income and this also should be considered as part of the allowance, if it is paid as superannuation or a loading to the allowance can be discussed further.

Financial Impacts

In the short term increasing the allowance for Councillors will increase Council expenses. However if the result is that it attracts more skilled Councillors that make better decisions then over the long term it could decrease expenses.

Role of Councillors

The role of Councillors is similar to a Board of Directors, it is to represent the interests of the owners (the community) and to ensure that the corporate systems and framework allow the organisation to achieve corporate objectives (deliver the legislated services).

Daniel Kade

PDF 63.99 KB

(opens in a new window)

East Gippsland Shire Council Submission

Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal:

Proposed Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors

Executive summary

Allowances are an integral component of ensuring that Councillors can perform the roles and responsibilities outlined in the Local Government Act 2020, representing the municipal community and participating in effective and transparent decision-making. The level of allowances should reflect the commitment expected of Councillors and the financial sustainability of the Council. In addition, allowances should adequately reflect the cost of representing the community to not preclude anyone from nominating and to ensure diversity of representation. Overall, when determining Councillor allowances, consideration should be given to a broad base of factors.

Role of Council members

The Local Government Act 2020 clearly sets out the roles of a Councillor, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in representing the interests of the municipal community. It sets a higher standard of integrity and behaviour for Council members than the Local Government Act 1989. The new Act increased the responsibilities for a Councillor and subsequently the onus on themselves to ensure they have the appropriate skills and abilities to undertake their duties.

Many elected representatives are unaware of the actual commitments required to be a Councillor beyond attending Council meetings and some civic events. The role of a Councillor may be voluntary, but the level of commitment is upward of a full-time executive.

East Gippsland Shire Council holds approximately 16 Council meetings and 48 Councillor briefing sessions per year, each with an agenda of papers and presentations that requires approximately 4-5 hours reading per week.

On top of that, Councillors participate in a range of activities including:

• briefing sessions for specific matters such as the budget, Council Plan
• Planning Consultative Meetings, as required
• section 223 hearings, as required
• advisory committee meetings (10 committees each meeting quarterly)
• representing Council on external committees (14 committees)
• community events and functions
• meetings with members of the municipal community
• training and professional development

In addition, Councillors allocate considerable time to responding to emails, letters and phone calls from members of the municipal community on a wide range of matters. These activities require considerable time commitment from Councillors to effectively fulfill their roles and responsibilities.

Following the 2020 Local Government election, Councillors in East Gippsland Shire have committed a large amount of their time to attending the required Councillor Induction Training on top of their regular commitments. Many have dedicated extra time to attend additional personal development training to enable them to effectively fulfill their roles and responsibilities. While the financial cost of training is generally covered by the Councillor Support and Expenses Policy, the Councillor’s allocation of time, plus the impact on income and family are not.

In geographically large shires like East Gippsland - which covers 10% of Victoria over 20,940 square kilometres - the time commitment is compounded by the need to travel to attend meetings or participate in events as a Councillor. As indicated by the recently released Local Government Inspectorate report¹, many Councillors reported their time commitment to be in excess of 16-24 hours per week and some Mayors reported spending more than 40 hours per week undertaking their roles and responsibilities.

The East Gippsland Shire Council is an unsubdivided electorate and Councillors represent the whole municipal community across 20,940 square kilometres. The tyranny of distance provides Councillors the added challenge of allocating time for engaging with the community across the Shire. Not to mention the safety of travelling on rural and regional roads.

The time committed to the roles and responsibilities of being a Councillor have flow on effects to employment or income earning capacity for self-employed people. Those Councillors employed must negotiate time away from their employment and those self-employed have to forgo earning opportunities for considerable periods each week. The East Gippsland Shire Councillors meet for five hours every Tuesday afternoon with most meetings going beyond the allocated time and every three weeks Council meetings that may go for up to three hours and sometimes beyond. Furthermore, attendance or participation in other Council related activities during business hours will require additional time away from work.

Purpose of allowances

Allowances, whilst not a wage, should be reflective of the commitment required by the Councillor to effectively fulfill their roles and responsibilities in representing the municipal community. Councillors are required to be adequately informed in the decision-making process and therefore have the responsibility to allocate sufficient time to understand matters presented to them for an outcome.

Many decisions of Council are complex and require Councillors to balance their work, family and life commitments with that of being a Councillor. If a Councillor, as indicated in the Local Government Inspectorate report, is spending in excess of 16-24 hours in their voluntary capacity as a Councillor and undertaking a 38–40-hour work week, the impact on their work/life balance can be significant.

Allowance category factors

Allowance category factors should reflect the demographics for the type of municipal community. For example, the demographics of an interface municipality will be different to that of a large shire or even a regional city council.

A key factor in determining allowances is the affordability and sustainability for the ratepayers. Councils need to balance the quantum of allowances to ensure Councillors are sufficiently compensated for their commitment with the potential impact on the delivery of services to the municipal community. Councils can only raise revenue from limited sources and given the current capping on rates, the opportunity to grow the income base of Council is restricted.

In the current methodology, population is used to determine the current Councillor allowances. While this reflects the level of services that Council must provide to the municipal community, it does not reflect the income base. Not all residents are ratepayers. In addition, in the East Gippsland Shire a significant number of ratepayers do not live in the municipality for a variety of reasons including investment in holiday homes.

Consideration should be given to broadening the basis for determining allowances as additional factors impact the Council’s ability to deliver services and maintain a sustainable financial situation. Other factors that could be considered include:

• geographical spread of the Shire
• economic factors such employment trends, economic growth
• industry composition
• social factors
• environmental factors
• circumstances such as drought, bushfire, flood and the pandemic
• provision of services.

The current factors are relatively easy to apply, but do not necessarily reflect the social, economic or environmental fabric of the municipality.

Adequacy of allowances

East Gippsland Shire Council has historically set the maximum amount of allowances in category 2 for the Mayor and Councillors. As outlined in the Local Government Inspectorate report, some East Gippsland Shire Councillors have indicated that the allowances do not reflect the commitment and cost of being a Councillor. Consideration should be given to determine allowances that reflect the commitment and financial and personal costs to Councillors in light of the legislative requirements in the Local Government Act 2020 and other Acts administered by Council.

The amount of Remote Travel Allowance has not changed since 2008 and is not reflective of the cost of travel in rural and remote communities. The Remote Travel Allowance is currently claimable by Councillors who reside greater than 50 kilometres from the location of a Council meeting or function. Consideration should be given to ensuring the Remote Travel Allowance reflects the current cost of travel in rural and remote areas whilst providing an annual cap. Clarity is required about whether this allowance is payable if Council provides the Councillor with a vehicle.

Allowances should also reflect the role and responsibilities of positions held on Council, such as the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor. The Local Government Act 2020 provides for greater responsibilities for the Mayor beyond chairing the meeting and attending functions. The allowances should reflect the responsibilities and additional time commitment for undertaking the role.

Currently there are no allowances specific to the Deputy Mayor, however consideration could be given to enabling the payment of allowances, like a sitting fee, when the Deputy Mayor assumes the role of Mayor in their absence. A sitting fee arrangement would reflect the increased responsibilities at a point in time.

Allowances that are too low may discourage candidates from seeking to run as a candidate in a local government election because of the life balance forgone. This will affect the ability of the community to elect representation that reflects its demographics. In addition, this has the potential to prevent people with relevant skills, knowledge and passion from nominating to be a Councillor.

In addition, low allowances limit the ability of people in different stages of life contributing to municipal life, as they may not have the capacity to fund reduced income from their primary employment, particularly self-employment. Allowances should provide some compensation for forgone income to enable Councillors to represent the municipal community.

People should not be prevented from being a Councillor due to the impact on their income or because they cannot afford it. Allowances that are too low to compensate the commitment required from a Councillor have the potential to discriminate on age, gender, ethnicity and other demographics. For instance, a young person early in their career may not be able to negotiate the interruption to their work with their employer or a person looking to start a family may not be able to afford the interruption to their income.

Allowances that reflect the true cost of representing the community will attract a greater diversity of candidates for the community to consider and elect to represent the municipal community.

Superannuation

East Gippsland Shire Council pays an amount equivalent to the Superannuation Guarantee to Councillors. The impact of paying this contribution should be considered in determining quantum for Councillor allowances as this still needs to be accounted for in the Council’s budgeting.

Comparators

Consideration should be given to lessons learnt from other jurisdictions in the determination of allowances, as this will provide information relevant to broadening the scope for the basis for Councillor allowances in Victoria. Drawing on the experiences of other states in determining Councillor allowances will provide assurance to the municipal community that the allowances reflect the demographics of the Shire and the financial sustainability and commitment of Councillors.

In addition, experiences for determining allowances or sitting fees for boards such as regional health organisations, sporting organisations and other community-based groups should be reviewed.

Financial impacts

Allowances established by the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal should reflect the financial sustainability and the operating environment of the Councils, particularly the ability to grow the rates basis for the Council. Further, consideration should be given to the social, economic and environmental situation of a shire. This is particularly relevant to East Gippsland where the community has been impacted by drought, the 2019/20 summer bushfires and a pandemic in quick succession.

In essence, the financial situation of a Council may not be reflective of their state’s overall financial situation and consideration should be given to this when determining Councillor allowances.

¹ _{Local Government Inspectorate, Councillor Expenses and Allowances, September 2020}

East Gippsland Shire Council

PDF 84.9 KB

(opens in a new window)

I will loose $100000 in taking over this current 3 week lockdown Thinking of returning to becoming a public servant Regards Frank Donato B.Ag.Sc.,Dip.Ed Donato cafe Mt Martha

Frank Donato

PDF 61.28 KB

(opens in a new window)

Victorian Remuneration Tribunal committee.

I make this submission to object to any increases in remunerations to all Councillors, Mayors and Chief Executive Officers in all 79 Local Governments of Victoria for a period of the next 4 years. 2022‐2026.

I give reasons why I object.

1. Victoria and it’s ratepayers are going through extended periods of financial hardship brought about by the COVID‐19 virus progressive outbreaks, especially this DELTA strain and the continued lock downs.

2. Live‐streaming of council meeting set down by the Victorian Government.

3. Continued poor outcome performances by councils which continues every year. Reference my councils third quarterly financial report and its Capital Works Projects results at the rear of the report. Note forecast Carryovers, Investment level and the Comprehensive Income Statement.

https://d2n3eh1td3vwdm.cloudfront.net/agendas‐minutes/attachments/H.07‐202021‐Major‐Initiatives‐Finance‐and‐Capital‐Works‐Third‐Quarter‐Report.pdf?mtime=20210514152327&focal=none

I request this Remuneration Tribunal to use as evidence a number of public reports spanning the last 4 years and points (a. to I.) I provide in this submission.

a. Local Governments Community Satisfaction survey results which clearly shows a disconnect councils have to its paying ratepayers.

https://d2n3eh1td3vwdm.cloudfront.net/general-downloads/Governance/Bass-Coast-Shire-Council-Community-Satisfaction-Survey-Report.PDF

b. Victorian Auditor Generals Annual reports for Local Government’s of which VAGO is restricted and limited in what can and cannot be reviewed and reported.

https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/results‐2019‐20‐audits‐local‐government?section=33750‐‐appendix‐b‐acronyms‐and‐abbreviations&show‐sections=1#33750‐‐appendix‐b‐acronyms‐and‐abbreviations

c. The Victorian ‘Know Your Council’ local government review report which has failings as their is no details of financial Carryovers of Capital Works and the percentage numbers of Capital Works Projects as a measure of actual achievements.

https://knowyourcouncil.vic.gov.au/councils/bass‐coast

d. The Local Government Act 2020 has no Section or subsection stating a requirement of a Chief Executive Performance Policy with sub sections for financials, financials of Capital Works and measures of project infrastructure outcomes.

Section 46 and Section 106 of the LGA 2020 is quite clear what the CEO of council must do but no performance measures or Key Performance Measures.

e. The LGA 2020 has no Section or subsection stating requirements of Councillors and Mayors Performance Policy as measures of Statutory requirements and budget achieved outcomes.

https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/local-government-act-2020/003

f. My council, the Bass Coast Shire Council (Councillors) voted and approved wage increases to the maximum allowed set down by the Victorian State Government on 17 February 2021 during a COVID-19 hardship period.
The review of Councillor Allowances 17/2/2021 was allowed under the Local Government Act 1989 Sections 73B and 74 to 74B and section 74(1). The Bass Coast Shire Councillors prior to voting received no public submissions. The approval outcome was for Councillors to receive a maximum of $26,245 with a 9.5% superannuation guarantee and the Mayor a maximum of $81,204 with a 9.5% superannuation guarantee.
Refer to H.12 page 180 of the Ordinary Council meeting 17 February 2021.

https://d2n3eh1td3vwdm.cloudfront.net/agendas-minutes/minutes/Open-Minutes-17-February-2021_2021-03-17-010341.pdf?mtime=20210317113341&focal=none

g. As part of the remuneration allowances for Councillors and Mayors of the Bass Coast Shire Council 9 councillors can claim at will with proof for Car Milage expenses, Conferences and Training expenses, Information and Communication expenses, Travel expenses and Vehicle expenses all through a period of the COVID-19 virus periods of lock down and while live-streaming Zoom meetings are allowed.

https://d2n3eh1td3vwdm.cloudfront.net/agendas-minutes/attachments/I.04-Councillor-Expenses-for-the-Council-Term-9-November-2020-to-30-June-2021_2021-08-13-050123.PDF?mtime=20210813143123&focal=none

h. The Chief Executive Officer of the Bass Coast Shire Council remuneration is $327,000 per annum. However little is known about any allowances attached as the councillors declared the details confidential.

I. Councils investments are high and financial Carryovers of Capital Works Projects are low. Both a measure of poor performance by my council the Bass Coast Shire Council and all 79 Councils in Victoria.

It is my intention that my submission must be strongly taken into consideration leading to a conclusion of NO increases in any remuneration should be allowed under your consideration.

Not even an inflation increase or any percentage increase of any limit.

Yours Sincerely
Graham Jolly

Graham Jolly

PDF 401.85 KB

(opens in a new window)

Hi,

We do not believe Mayors and Councillors should receive an increase in their remuneration. They are honorary positions in our community, and the increases would defeat these purposes.

I, on behalf of Korean communities in Victoria, express strong dissent on such increases.

James

James Bae

PDF 60.07 KB

(opens in a new window)

I wish to object to an increase in the allowances and renumeration for Mayors and councillors.

We are in a pandemic and there should be no increase. An increase simply doesn't meet community standards in these dire ecomonic condirions.

The community is struggling. Businesses are going bust due to no fault of their own. Many in the community are struggling both financially and mentally.

In these trying conditions, to award increases to Mayors and councillors allowances would send the wrong message. Those who continue to hold onto their jobs should be grateful.

These are not normal times. The public is struggling and the fact that the public pay the allowances for Mayors and councillors should not be forgotten.

Regards.

Kelly Rossiter

PDF 62.23 KB

(opens in a new window)

My submission states I do not wish to see any pay rises in local government. In fact a review of pay structures is required to show accountability of CEO's , Mayors , Deputy Mayors and Councillors. The Shire of Yarra Ranges pay rate for these Office bearers appears excessive for little return or outcomes. During the pandemic council and local government have reduced services and were very slow to respond to needs of residents following a huge storm.

Pay rises are only valid when those in the roles or the whole organisation is performing at a peak.

keep smiling
Margaret Quon

Margaret Quon

PDF 55.33 KB

(opens in a new window)

15th August 2021

Dear Chairperson and Tribunal members,

Re: Proposed determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors ‐ submission

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to this process.

As a resident of the City of Moreland, and having attempted to be involved in local council issues and consultations during the past few years, my opinion is that:

• Councillors allowances should be increased significantly
• Mayors and Deputy Mayors allowances should be decreased significantly

I note that elected parent members of Government School Councils are unpaid. They volunteer their time for free. In my opinion, children deserve better than that, and there should be consideration of the bigger picture, and redistributing funds more evenly across society.

Local Councillors are definitely paid too little, and my observation is that the administration takes advantage of that by writing long rambling reports and producing monthly meeting agendas that are sometimes over 1,000 pages long. Council staff are therefore able to hide numerous details in these long agenda that are rarely picked up by Councillors, who for $31,000 per year could not be reasonably expected to read more than the Executive Summary of each item in the Agenda.

Actually even the Executive Summaries tend to be very badly written with numerous deliberate omissions, with Officer Recommendations that do not fulfil the requirements for properly constructed resolutions of Council (e.g. are not self‐contained and self‐explanatory, but instead are vague and open to misinterpretation).

It is the salaries of the Council staff that need to be seriously reviewed, and drastically slashed.

The Mayors allowance is too high, (redacted), in an extremely embarrassing Special Meeting to elect the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

And then to make matters worse, the Mayor and a select group of Councillors elected themselves to a Committee to oversee the development of the 4-year Council Plan and other key Council strategies, and via that Committee they then delegated the responsibility for community engagement to consultants, at an extravagant and wasteful cost.

So instead of the Mayor fulfilling their role as per section 18(1)(c) of the LGA 2020, to "lead engagement with the municipal community on the development of the Council Plan", they have instead handed over that job to Council staff and consultants. I am aware that some of the deliberative engagement consultants charge $400 per hour. I have noticed that there are 3‐4 deliberative engagement consultant specialists who appear to be producing the Council Plan for many metro Councils this year.

(redacted)

I gave up submitting questions to public question time for quite a while after that, because I felt that I was knowing causing disinformation to be published in the governance report section of the monthly meeting agenda. And that was not my intention.

I have also noticed that the Mayor is not sufficiently familiar with the Governance Rules, and does not implement meeting procedures in a sufficiently reasonable manner compared to the allowance that they are paid.

I would also point out that Moreland Council has not yet even produced a Draft Council Plan or Draft Council Vision, even though it is the middle of August. There is no Council Action Plan for 2021–22 either.

My impression is that governance standards have dropped significantly under this new LGA.

Therefore for all the reasons mentioned above, I believe that the Mayoral allowance should be reduced significantly.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

Yours faithfully,

Marion Attwater

(redacted)

Marion Attwater

PDF 158.75 KB

(opens in a new window)

Dear sir or madam
I’m writing to express that I do NOT want increases in councillor and mayor allowances.

Regards
Mio Ihashi

Mio Ihashi

PDF 58.98 KB

(opens in a new window)

Submission in response to the consultation paper, Proposed Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors

Submitted by Moonee Valley City Council
16 August 2021

localgovernment@remunerationtribunal.vic.gov.au

For any enquiries, please contact: Ms Helen Sui
Chief Executive Officer
(03) 9243 8855 / hsui@mvcc.vic.gov.au

Moonee Valley City Council
9 Kellaway Avenue Moonee Ponds
PO Box 125 Moonee Ponds Victoria 3039
DX 212139
Phone 03 9243 8888 Fax 03 9377 2100 Email council@mvcc.vic.gov.au
mvcc.vic.gov.au

---

Introduction

Moonee Valley City Council is pleased to have the opportunity to provide feedback in response to the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal’s consultation paper, Proposed Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors. We welcome this process of independent review as an opportunity to establish allowances for Councillors, Deputy Mayors and Mayors which reflect the important role these elected representatives play in providing good governance, and as the closest level of Government to our Victorian communities.

About the City of Moonee Valley

Moonee Valley is located in the inner and middle north-western suburbs of Melbourne, between four and 13 kilometres from the CBD. Approximately 131,000 people call Moonee Valley Home. This is forecast to grow to 177,000 by 2041. While our community is ageing, there will also be more young professionals and the regeneration of families by 2040.

Moonee Valley is proud of its rich heritage. The Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung are the traditional owners of the land. They relied on the Maribyrnong River, Moonee Ponds Creek and Steele Creek for fishing, transport and food. Our history goes back a long way, and continues to live through family stories, buildings, residential and commercial precincts, parks, trees and objects.

Almost one-third of our population was born overseas, and around 30 per cent speak a language other than English at home. While diversity is a major strength for Moonee Valley, health and wellbeing outcomes can be quite different for different groups. Moonee Valley can be described as a ‘tale of two cities’, with those who are relatively advantaged and disadvantaged living in close proximity. Our municipality has eight of the top 24 most disadvantaged small areas in Victoria in terms of socio-economic disadvantage. We also have the third-highest proportion of social housing dwellings in Victoria, with major housing estates in Flemington and Ascot Vale.

Moonee Valley is also home to major employment precincts including Essendon Fields/Essendon Airport.

In 2018, Moonee Valley published our long-term plan, MV2040, which guides how we will make Moonee Valley a great place to live for current and future generations. Under this Strategy, we’re working toward a Moonee Valley which is Fair, Thriving, Connected, Green and Beautiful.

Submission

The Tribunal has asked that respondents refer to a set of consultation questions. We address these below.

Role of Council members

1. What are the most important duties and responsibilities of Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors?

The role of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors are outlined at sections 18, 21 and 28 of the Local Government Act 2020. Specifically, they are:

s18 Role of the Mayor
(1) The role of the Mayor is to—
(a) chair Council meetings; and
(b) be the principal spokesperson for the Council; and
(c) lead engagement with the municipal community on the development of the Council Plan; and
(d) report to the municipal community, at least once each year, on the implementation of the Council Plan; and
(e) promote behaviour among Councillors that meets the standards of conduct set out in the Councillor Code of Conduct; and
(f) assist Councillors to understand their role; and
(g) take a leadership role in ensuring the regular review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer; and
(h) provide advice to the Chief Executive Officer when the Chief Executive Officer is setting the agenda for Council meetings; and
(i) perform civic and ceremonial duties on behalf of the Council.

s21 Role of the Deputy Mayor
The Deputy Mayor must perform the role of the Mayor and may exercise any of the powers of the Mayor if—
(a) the Mayor is unable for any reason to attend a Council meeting or part of a Council meeting; or
(b) the Mayor is incapable of performing the duties of the office of Mayor for any reason, including illness; or
(c) the office of Mayor is vacant.

s28 Role of a Councillor
(1) The role of every Councillor is—
(a) to participate in the decision making of the Council; and
(b) to represent the interests of the municipal community in that decision making; and
(c) to contribute to the strategic direction of the Council through the development and review of key strategic documents of the Council, including the Council Plan.

(2) In performing the role of a Councillor, a Councillor must—
(a) consider the diversity of interests and needs of the municipal community; and
(b) support the role of the Council; and
(c) acknowledge and support the role of the Mayor; and
(d) act lawfully and in accordance with the oath or affirmation of office; and
(e) act in accordance with the standards of conduct; and
(f) comply with Council procedures required for good governance.

(3) The role of a Councillor does not include the performance of any responsibilities or functions of the Chief Executive Officer.

As these roles are enshrined in legislation, each is equally important and forms part of the community’s expectations around the performance of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors.

2. How have the roles and responsibilities of Council members changed since the last review of Councillor allowances in 2008? What future challenges may emerge?

As the Tribunal is aware, in recent years the Local Government Act underwent its “most ambitious and comprehensive reform… for 30 years,”¹ culminating in the adoption of a new Local Government Act in 2020. This has resulted in significant shifts to the roles and responsibilities of Councillors, as well as expectations around Councillor capability and accountability. These are positive reforms, which Moonee Valley has supported at every stage. From our first submission to consultations held around reform of the Local Government Act, we championed the need for training to support all Councillors to fulfil their governance responsibilities. We therefore welcome the fact that training of Council candidates and new Councillors is now mandatory, as outlined at sections 32 and 256(7) of the Local Government Act 2020. With additional responsibility and capability required of Councillors under the new Act, it seems appropriate that the Tribunal review Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillor allowances to determine whether an increase is also warranted.

The consultation paper notes the impact of increasing use of digital methods of communication on increased Councillor workload. The Local Government Inspectorate’s Councillor expenses and allowances paper (2020) observes that surveyed Councillors commonly commented on the need for additional administrative and secretarial support. At Moonee Valley, Councillors are resourced with support from Councillor Support Officers together with a Council Liaison Officer, who assist to respond to enquiries from the community. However, we note that this is not the case at every Council. Councillors are still responsible for responding to all of their own mobile telephone calls, responding to emails directly, and triaging any enquiries through Councillor Support and Councillor Liaison. These tasks are in addition to Councillors’ governance and public-facing roles, such as preparing for and attending Council Meetings, attending officer briefings, participating in committees, attending community gatherings, and so forth. At other levels of Government, elected representatives receive administrative support (through electorate officers and the like) to attend to tasks of this nature.

Use of social media has also increased the ease with which the community is able to communicate with Councillors. Many Councillors maintain their own independent social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn being the most popular) which Council officers do not support them to administer. Submissions to the Victorian Parliament’s Inquiry into the Impact of Social Media on Elections and Electoral Administration noted the increased workload for Councillors that has come as a result of the rise of social media, and the impact of negative feedback/”trolling”.

The consultation paper also notes the impact of population increases. As the introduction to this submission noted, the population of Moonee Valley is expected to grow from its current figure of approximately 131,000, to 177,000 by 2041. With this growth comes increased service provision, increased infrastructure delivery and increased demand on the planning process.

These are all factors which should be taken into account by the Tribunal.

3. How are Council member roles affected by a Council’s electoral structure (for example, ward structure or ratio of Council members to population)?

Moonee Valley currently has a multi-member ward structure. Our municipality is divided into three wards: Buckley (Aberfeldie, Essendon Fields, Essendon North, Strathmore, most of Essendon and Strathmore Heights, parts of Moonee Ponds and Essendon West); Myrnong (Ascot Vale, Flemington, Travancore, most of Moonee Ponds, part of Essendon) and Rose Hill (Airport West, Avondale Heights, Keilor East, Niddrie, most of Essendon West, part of Strathmore Heights). At the time of the 2020 Council elections, voter enrolment in Buckley Ward was 29,608, in Myrnong Ward was 32,010, and in Rose Hill Ward was 32,305.² We will transition to a single-member ward structure at the 2024 Council elections, along with remaining metropolitan Councils who did not move to single-member wards in 2020, in line with section 13 of the Local Government Act 2020.

It is difficult to predict with any degree of certainty what the impacts of these changes will be to Councillors’ workloads. The purpose of uniform single-member ward structures articulated by the then-Minister for Local Government was to provide greater “accountability, equity and grassroots democracy”. A multi-member ward structure results in a larger number of community members to represent, but alongside that is the potential to share the workload with fellow Councillors representing the same constituency. As the sole representative of a suburb or equivalent area, a Councillor’s workload may increase, even though the total number of people represented has decreased.

Regardless of ward size, Councillors, the Deputy Mayor and the Mayor “represent the interests of the municipal community” in their decision-making, as required under section 28(2) of the Local Government Act 2020. This means that every Councillor, while elected by a constituency defined by ward boundaries, ultimately serves the entire municipal community. Regardless of municipal structure, every Councillor, Deputy Mayor and Mayor is required to perform the same role as defined under the Act, outlined in our response to Question 1. These are factors the Tribunal should take into account when evaluating whether municipal structure is the right measure to apply in determining allowance levels

Purpose of allowances

4. What is, or should be, the purpose of allowances for Council members?

In his letter to the Tribunal, the Minister reflected that while “Government [currently] views Councillor allowances not as a form of salary, but as a recognition of the contributions made by those elected to voluntary part time roles in the community, the Tribunal may wish to consider whether this view supports a contemporary local government sector that attracts diverse community perspectives to civic life”. We welcome the Minister’s commentary that the current purpose of allowances, which is not outlined in legislation, requires revisiting and redefining.

The Local Government Inspectorate’s Councillor expenses and allowances (2020) report indicated that many surveyed Mayors viewed their allowance as a form of salary, regarding the role of Mayor as being either full-time or close to full-time in nature. A majority of Councillors, by comparison, hold down other work alongside their Councillor role. This necessarily impacts the amount of time individuals are able to dedicate to the role of Councillor, and may dissuade prospective candidates with other work and care responsibilities from nominating for Council. The Inspectorate’s report noted that a majority of surveyed Councillors viewed the purpose of allowances as being to “represent recognition of the contributions” made by Councillors, or to “cover costs relating to” the role of Councillor. This second response, which was selected by 35 per cent of surveyed Councillors, should ultimately be the purpose of the Councillor Expenses policy and processes.

Councillor allowances should ideally act as a form of remuneration or compensation for the work done by Councillors, taking into account the community’s expectations of Councillors, the average hours Councillors report working, and the seniority of their public role in the community.

Allowance category factors

5. What factors should be considered when allocating Councils to allowance categories? Is the existing system, in which Councils are allocated categories based on population and revenue, appropriate?

As we have noted previously, every Councillor, Deputy Mayor and Mayor is required to perform the same role as defined under the Act. Given that Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors ultimately all perform the same legislated role, it is challenging to identify an appropriate system of categorisation which allocates greater allowances to some Victorian Councillors and Mayors, than it does others. Each Council has its own unique set of challenges and opportunities which must be acknowledged.

Adequacy of resources

6. Are current allowance values adequate, for example to:

a. Attract suitable candidates to stand for Council?
b. Reflect the costs (e.g. time commitment) and benefits of Council service?
c. Support diversity amongst Council members and potential candidates?

The Tribunal is aware that in the past, Councillor and Mayoral allowances have been set by the Minister, utilising a three-tier approach based on the Council’s income and population. The lowest band, which applies to small regional Councils, sets Councillor remuneration as low as $8,833 per annum plus the equivalent of the superannuation guarantee.

Moonee Valley City Council is currently a Category 3 Council. This means that our Councillors are entitled to receive an allowance of between $13,123 - $31,444 p/a and our Mayor is entitled to receive an allowance up to $100,434. Both the Mayor and Councillors also receive the equivalent of the superannuation guarantee of 10.0 per cent. At its Meeting of 11 May 2021, Council reviewed its allowances in accordance with section 74(1) of the Local Government Act 2020. Council determined at that time to set its allowances at $31,444 for Councillors and $100,434 for the Mayor, placing us at the top of the current band.

The Tribunal notes in its consultation paper that according to research conducted by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), Councillors generally spend between 10 to 20 hours per week on their role. Applied as a salary, a Moonee Valley Councillor working 20 hours per week would be paid $30.23 per hour. At the lowest possible Category 1 rate of $8,833 per annum, a Councillor working 20 hours per week would receive $8.49 per hour. Many Councillors estimate that they work significantly more than 20 hours per week; as the consultation paper notes, 20 per cent of respondents to the Local Government Inspectorate’s Councillor expenses and allowances report (2020) indicated that they spent more than 32 hours per week in the performance of their role.

Whilst we appreciate that the allowance structure is not intended to mimic a salary, the current allowance paid to Councillors does not seem sufficient in recognition of the significant responsibilities they hold. As the closest level of Government to the community, Councillors are extremely accessible, their mobile telephone numbers and email addresses publicly provided. It is entirely appropriate that Councillors continue to maintain the level of accessibility they currently have to the community. However, their allowance should be set in recognition of this level of accessibility, and the tasks they perform.

The allowance provided to Councillors undoubtedly impacts on willingness to stand for Council, and on Councillor diversity. Moonee Valley acknowledges that the Victorian Government is currently implementing a range of measures to encourage greater diversity in Local Government representation, and in particular a greater number of women to stand for election to Local Government. This includes the adoption of the Gender Equality Act 2020 and the establishment of a Gender Equality Advisory Committee. Moonee Valley is proud to have a strong history of encouraging women’s participation in Local Government, evidenced by the fact that this is the third Council term in a row where we have a majority female Councillors, and in the immediate past two Council terms, seven out of eight of our Mayors were women. Our current Mayor stated in his acceptance speech that he is proud to be the first openly-identifying member of the LGBTIQA+ community to be elected Mayor of Moonee Valley City Council. We strongly support diverse representation in Local Government in all its forms.

We are concerned that responses to the Local Government Inspectorate’s Councillor expenses and allowances report (2020) suggest that there are still barriers to participation for Councillors from diverse backgrounds, including financial barriers. We note that close to 60 per cent of surveyed Councillors indicated that they felt they were not paid enough. When asked what kinds of things respondents thought the Councillor Expenses policy should cover/that they should be reimbursed for, less than 50 per cent of Councillor respondents selected “Childcare and other dependent care related expenses”. Neither response was aggregated by gender; noting that responses to the MAV Councillor Census (2017) showed that around half of all female respondents had care responsibilities for children and/or dependents, compared to less than 30 per cent of all male respondents. The report went on to highlight a negative example of a Councillor making childcare and dependent care expense claims, and to draw on a positive example of Councillor expense reporting where no Councillor claimed childcare or dependent care expenses.

Whilst the Local Government Act 2020 has seen the introduction of explicit provisions to ensure Councillors are supported with care-related expenses (section 41) as well as accessibility supports (section 42), reporting these costs as Councillor Expenses remains problematic, due to the not insignificant public scrutiny attached to Councillor allowances and expenses. It is clear from the Local Government Inspectorate’s survey that there are still mixed views about care-related expenses, even amongst Councillors. Support for a cultural shift is required to ensure allowances and expenses adequately support and encourage Councillors from diverse backgrounds.

Whilst Moonee Valley City Council has a female majority, including those with children, no Councillors currently tap into this allowance. We would argue the scrutiny attached to expenses if child care is included could be a large barrier to participation for some potential Councillors.

Superannuation

7. How, if at all, should superannuation be considered in determining allowance values?

A superannuation equivalent should be paid to all Councillors.

At Moonee Valley, Councillors are provided with options in regard to the administration of their allowance payments. Some receive their allowance as a direct payment in full, including the superannuation equivalent guarantee; others have nominated to have their allowance processed through payroll, with PAYG tax deducted and superannuation paid to their nominated account. This approach was implemented by the current Council at its Meeting of 23 February 2021, in line with section 446-5 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth).

We agree with the Tribunal’s comment in the consultation paper that “superannuation arrangements for Council members are complex”. We would welcome a simplification of approach which still ensures that Councillors receive a superannuation equivalent.

Comparators

8. The Tribunal is required to consider allowances for persons elected to ‘voluntary part-time community bodies’ when making the Determination. Which bodies should the Tribunal consider, and why?

Moonee Valley does not have a view in response to this question.

9. The Tribunal is also required to consider similar allowances for elected members of local government bodies in other States. Which States are particularly relevant (or not) for this purpose, and why?

The Tribunal’s consultation paper notes that the States of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia all consider “social, economic and environmental factors” in determining allowance categories. The States of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia also factor the extent of services provided. Without having reviewed each State’s approach in detail, these approaches appear to have merit, and we would be interested to see service delivery and social, economic and environmental factors incorporated into the Tribunal’s determinations.

Financial impacts

10. What are the financial impacts of varying allowance values for Council members?

Allowances for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Council are paid for as part of Council’s operating budget. In this regard, we are subject to the determination of the Tribunal and will be required to adjust our Budget accordingly. The introduction of rate-capping of Victorian Local Governments in 2015 has restricted our budget envelope, and we note that increases in Councillor allowance will need to be balanced elsewhere in the Budget. There are also community expectations around the amount of rates revenue which should be expended on Councillor allowances and expenses, which must be measured. Nevertheless, we support appropriate increases in recognition of work performed, for the reasons already outlined.

Conclusion

Moonee Valley City Council thanks the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal for the opportunity to provide feedback in response to its discussion paper, Proposed Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors. We look forward to the outcome of this review.

Should you wish to discuss any of these matters further, please contact:

Ms Meghan Hopper
Senior Coordinator, Advocacy
(03) 9243 1127 / mhopper@mvcc.vic.gov.au

or

Ms Helen Sui
Chief Executive Officer
(03) 9243 8855 / hsui@mvcc.vic.gov.au.

---

¹ Local Government Victoria, Local Government Act 2020,
https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/council-governance/local-government-act-2020

² Victorian Electoral Commission, Moonee Valley City Council election results 2020, https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/results/council-election-results/2020-council-election-results/moonee-valley-city-council

Moonee Valley City Council

PDF 217.26 KB

(opens in a new window)

Municipal Association of Australia
Level 12, 60 Collins Street Melbourne
GPO Box 4326 Melbourne VIC 3001
T [03] 9667 5555
F [03] 9667 5550
www.mav.asn.au

20 August 2021

Mr Warren McCann
Chair
Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal
Suite 1, Ground Floor
1 Treasury Place
EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002

Delivered by email to localgovernment@remunerationtribunal.vic.gov.au.

Dear Mr McCann

Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission about the Consultation Paper regarding the proposed Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors.

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is a membership association and the legislated peak body for local government in Victoria.

The MAV considers the Tribunal’s review process will bring renewed public transparency to the issue of councillor allowances given a review of these allowances has not occurred since 2008. The MAV acknowledges, in addition to the Consultation Paper, there has been an opportunity for currently serving Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors to complete an online questionnaire.

Councillors, as civic leaders, make a vital contribution to Victoria by representing and engaging with their communities. The duties and responsibilities of Councillors require they govern for today across the social, economic, environmental and cultural domains in the knowledge their decisions are made in stewardship for future generations.

Providing an allowance to Councillors is a recognition of the contribution they make as they perform their roles. The allowance is not the equivalent to remuneration for a salaried position. The current allowance levels do not go anywhere near the time and effort invested by Councillors in their role.

To assist Councillors to undertake their role the allowance is complimented through the provision of resources and facilities, such as information technology equipment (including mobile phone and computer) and the reimbursement of expenses, such as travel and child care/family care costs. These resources, facilities and reimbursements contribute to maximising the potential for all members of the community to seek out an elected role. In addition, learning and development opportunities are often available to assist Councillors to perform their role. As detailed in the Consultation Paper, Councillors are entitled to receive payments in lieu of superannuation entitlements and remote area travel arrangements. These payments are supported and in the view of the MAV, should be retained in their existing form.

The Local Government Act 2020 requires Councillors to represent the interests of the municipal community in their decision making. The allowance is a way to attract candidates with a diverse range of backgrounds. This diversity in backgrounds assists Councils to make decisions in the best interests of the whole community.

Since the review of allowances occurred in 2008 the roles and responsibilities of Councillors have changed and evolved. The decisions Councillors make are often long term and strategically focused across many areas including asset management, financial and corporate planning. Councillors make these decisions following more rigorous community engagement processes for which they play a key role. Since 2008 community expectations of the role has also changed especially regarding visibility, accountability and accessibility. This has partly been driven by the widespread use of technology for regular communications such as email and social media.

The role and responsibilities of the position of Mayor has particularly changed since 2008. While the Mayor continues to be the ‘leader among equals’ whose role and responsibilities include chairing council meetings, being the primary spokesperson and carrying out civic and ceremonial duties it also now includes other prescribed leadership functions such as to facilitate good governance practices including community engagement activities, dispute resolution, leading the review of the performance of the CEO and assisting their fellow Councillors to understand their roles.

In addition, the demise of traditional media outlets in communities, such as local newspapers, has resulted in Mayors having to take a greater role in filling the communication vacuum. This has been demonstrated during the COVID pandemic and recent bushfires where Mayors have often been central to communication messages by providing information and support directly to their communities through Council and other communication channels.

A recent change to roles and responsibilities of Councillors has also been the recognition of the Deputy Mayor position in the Act. Given this recognition it would be consistent practice to provide a specific allowance for this position. At the MAV State Council meeting in May 2021 a resolution was passed to ‘…allow Councils to determine a separate allowance for the Deputy Mayor role for 2021/22, subject to a Determination by the Tribunal’.

Regarding the future, an opportunity which may emerge for Councillors in undertaking their role is in respect to the new provision in the Act which enables joint meetings of councils to be held. This provision may provide new opportunities for joint decision making in areas such as procurement arrangements and creating broader strategic planning opportunities such as regional infrastructure planning.

Continuing to base the allowance categories on population and revenue is supported. The current methodology provides a consistent and transparent approach. However, it is noted additional factors (eg. geography) are considered by some other jurisdictions when determining the allowance categories. The MAV would welcome further consultation on any new methodology identified by the Tribunal.

Regarding financial implications, the setting of the allowances and the yearly increases present difficulties for Councillors given the rate capped requirements and fiscal constraints councils operate within. However, despite these difficulties the importance of the payment of the allowance remains a crucial recognition of their role and responsibilities.

In summary the MAV welcomes the review of the allowances and seeks a continuation of the model which categorises Councils based on a consistent methodology.

Yours sincerely

Kerry Thompson
Chief Executive Officer
Municipal Association of Victoria

Municipal Association of Victoria

PDF 200.75 KB

(opens in a new window)

Dean Hurlston
President Ratepayers Victoria
August 2021

On behalf of the Volunteer Committee: Arthur Bregiannis, Chan Cheah, Claudio Bevilacqua, Eric Platt, Joseph Gianfriddo, Kelvin Granger, Lynnette Saloumi

Authored by Verity Webb

Introduction

The timing of this Determination, being sought by Local Government Minister Shaun Leane while ordinary people remain locked down, losing jobs and closing small businesses demonstrates starkly how easily we, the non-government people are overlooked in public service processes.

The documents and surveys cited by the Tribunal in its Consultation Paper for this Determination also suggest Councillors and some public servants fall a long way short of the skills and compassion required to represent residents with integrity.

This submission seeks to bring to the attention of the Tribunal, the impact on ordinary Victorians, of the additional cost of an increase in allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors along with annual indexation.

Ratepayers Victoria argues that Councillor allowances should be frozen at their current dollar value, until all pandemic restrictions are lifted, and all Victorians are free to live, work and travel and have some certainty about their financial future.

In addition, Ratepayers Victoria requests the Tribunal determine that Councils stop paying superannuation to Councillors.

Financial Impact on Victorian Residents

There are more than three million ratepayers in Victoria and 76.3% of rate revenue comes from residential households.¹

There is no readily available data to determine the impact of rates and rate increases on residential households in Victoria.

There is only disparate data from different agencies, that gives a rough idea of what the impact might be by providing some averages on employment, household wealth, household demographics and taxation.

The Know Your Council website says the average cost of running Council in Victoria is about $3,400 per household per year and the average rates bill is $1,777.²

The most current ABS data on household income is for Australians in general in 2019 and estimates average weekly household income at $2349 per week.³

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is similarly unhelpful. National ATO figures from FY2019⁴ reveal the average taxable income was $62,549 and the average net tax was $19,344. But this relates to individuals, not households.

Census data from 2016 (when there were 2.5m private dwellings) showed the median weekly household income was $1419⁵ but this data is so old, it’s not helpful.

The purpose of this plethora of paragraphs is to demonstrate that no sector of the public sector has made any effort to research, quantify or model, the effect of Council rates on Victorian households.

Tribunal members will be well aware the current Covid pandemic is creating financial uncertainty for households and governments.

The August 16th announcement of new curfews and continuing lockdowns⁶ indicates there is unlikely to be any certainty before 18 December, when the Tribunal’s Determination is supposed to take effect.

One insight to the Determination’s possible impact can be found in the Victorian Ombudsman’s recent report into the way Councils respond to residents experiencing financial hardship.⁷

Local Government Victoria gathers no data on hardship applications to Councils⁸ and even the Ombudsman’s office was unable to get information from Councils to quantify how many ratepayers are already suffering hardship or would suffer hardship if rates rose.

However, the Ombudsman provides some guidance about the numbers of, and types of, households that could be impacted by an increase in Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillor allowances, on page 13 of the Investigation:

The Investigation also provides many detailed case studies that help Tribunal members imagine what might happen in different homes around Victoria, if Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors receive allowance increases.

• Nick in Maroondah on p46
• Teresa in Brimbank on p51
• Amal in Melbourne’s northern suburbs on p61

Conclusion regarding Financial Impact on Ratepayers from higher allowances

Ratepayers Victoria believes shelter is a basic human right and purchasing a home or owning a family home does not indicate wealth and certainly is no indication of disposable income.

We have little control over the income we need to cover the cost of rates on top of other taxes and charges. We have one income and three governments to serve. We have no ability to refuse to pay rates even if Council’s rate costs are unaffordable.

Given there is no reliable data to predict the financial impact of a rise in Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillor allowances on Victorian households, Ratepayers Victoria feels it would be unwise for the Tribunal to make such a determination.

Ratepayers’ ability to manage the financial impact of rates

Before rate notices are issued

This basic illustration below explains the inputs to Council rate bills and where residents can influence the amount of rates they’re charged, before rate notices are issued.

In this annual process, we the residents have only one opportunity to influence one input to this process: the Council budget.

The Victorian Auditor-General’s 2017 audit into Local Government Community Engagement noted:

“Section 127 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) requires councils to prepare a budget each financial year. Councils’ budgets must detail the services and initiatives to be funded in the budget and outline how they will contribute to councils’ strategic objectives.

We found that the community consultation conducted as part of developing councils’ budgets was generally more of a compliance exercise than an opportunity for the community to meaningfully engage with the budget.”⁹

From personal experience we can attest residents are still effectively ignored in the budgeting process. Councils do invite public submissions and hold a meeting to hear those submissions.

There is little debate. Most Councils simply publish a summary of submissions made and whether they were successful. They do not have to provide any reasons.

Participating in these sessions as a resident seeking to remove pet projects from Council budgets, or cut budget allocations for favourite consulting firms, or simply try to get a straight answer about why employee costs are rising 6.7% is a time-consuming, stressful and disheartening experience. (Appendix B)

Anecdotal evidence suggests we fail most of the time.

In the case of the submission referenced here, Councillors voted for a 0% rate increase instead of the 2% originally sought – and yet none of the savings suggested were adopted.

In Maribyrnong Council when we ask Council for savings, Councillors routinely sneer “what services would you like us to cut.” And then ignore the suggestions we make in Budget submissions.

According to the Local Government Act Governance Principles 9(b)

Ratepayers Victoria contends that because we are the municipal community, we are best placed to provide suggestions on expenditure we’re prepared for Council to forego. Practice proves otherwise.

This discussion about our ability to influence budgets is particularly pertinent, because the Tribunal’s own consultation paper suggests Councils can shuffle spending to accommodate higher Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillor allowances.

Hopefully the Tribunal now understands the Budget process from our point of view and what type of ‘shuffling’ will occur if Councils feel they need to shuffle budgets to pay for any increase in allowances.

After rate notices are issued

If Ratepayers are unable to pay their Rate bills, or feel paying their rate bills would cause financial distress, there are two avenues available:

1. Object to the Valuation
2. Apply for Hardship Relief

1. Object to the valuation

The Local Government Act 2020 provides no right for Ratepayers to object to their Rate Bill and no responsibility for Councils to provide a simple and efficient complaints procedure for this purpose.

However, the Land Valuation Act does provide for objections to the Land Value portion of Rates Notices only and the Department of Land, Environment Water and Planning does provide access to a pro-forma for this purpose.¹⁰ Ratepayers have to submit it to their local Council.

There is no data available from each Council or via the ‘Know Your Council’ website on how many ratepayers object to their Rates Notices each year, how many are successful and how many fail.

If ratepayers are unhappy with the result of their objection, they can go further to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) at a cost of $663.00.

VCAT’s annual report FY20¹¹ notes there were 193 claims. The Report provides no summary of the outcomes.

We note there has been no interest from Councillors, Council staff or Local Government Victoria in collating this data and presenting it publicly despite continuing pledges to serve residents with integrity, transparency and accountability.

This provides yet another example of the selective nature of Council’s attention to transparency and accountability. Public data is provided on swimming pool visits, and council liquidity levels but not rate objections.

2. Apply for hardship relief

As mentioned earlier the Ombudsman’s Investigation of May 2021 provides excellent evidence regarding the impact on ratepayers of seeking financial hardship relief from their local Councils.

Conclusion regarding ratepayers’ ability to manage financial impacts of higher Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillor allowances.

Ratepayers Victoria believes ratepayers need to posses above average knowledge of the law and public processes, or access to skilled resources and money, in order to confidently object to unaffordable rate notices. We have lobbied unsuccessfully so far, to ensure more residents are able to object to their rate bills.

Councillors representing the community

This section will provide community perspectives on some of the issues raised in the Tribunal’s Consultation paper.

At the outset, we note that there should be little or no difference between the way Councillors and residents see the role of Councillors – since theoretically councillors come from the community. Sadly, this is not the case in practice.

Mayors

Mayors bear additional responsibilities and duties get much higher allowances than Councillors in recognition of this.

Because of the higher allowance some Councils rotate the role of Mayor every year, so more Councillors share in the more lucrative remuneration.

Ratepayers Victoria contends all incumbents should provide leadership to Councillors and the community with exemplary behaviour. Sadly, this is not the case.

Famously, Casey Council is now in administration and is still the subject of Operation Sandon because of the activities of Mayor Sam Aziz.¹²

News items of Mayors behaving badly used to regularly pepper local papers and now more often appear on Facebook.

This excerpt is an example from Maribyrnong’s Council meeting last December where Mayor Michael Clarke announced the Council won’t grant waivers to residents in hardship because they might win the lottery the day after the waiver is granted.¹³

Resident reaction ranged from outrage to embarrassment.

Under the Local Government Act, Governance Policies and Council Code of Conduct this undignified speech warrants no fine or disciplinary action.

Not one Councillor has spoken up to chastise the Mayor, nor defend residents.

There is not even a requirement for the Mayor to apologise and he’s refused to do so, in spite of numerous requests.

Residents can complain to the Inspectorate or the Ombudsman about the behaviour of Mayors if they wish but the Local Government Act and various codes are so weak, that government bodies have virtually no power to take action, except in cases of potential corruption and misuse of public funds.

There’s a very large scope of poor performance that we, the residents, have to endure.

And we do not deserve the lack of respect we endure from our lead Municipal public servants.

Conclusion regarding allowances for Mayors

Ratepayers Victoria will not accept any increase in the allowances for Mayors until there are simple and effective ways for residents to make complaints about Mayoral behaviour and performance, followed by prompt and honest investigations and public responses.

Deputy Mayors

This is another example of the way in which residents are financially punished with no prior warning and no prior consultation. Until the Local Government Act 2020 there was no legal entitlement to a separate allowance for Deputy Mayor.

It was slipped into the Act with little or no debate and no attempt by Councils or state elected representatives to ensure residents were aware of the change.

Conclusions regarding allowances for Deputy Mayors

Ratepayers Victoria will not accept the introduction of a separate allowances for Deputy Mayors until there are simple and effective ways for residents to make complaints about Councillor behaviour and performance, followed by prompt and honest investigations and public responses.

Councillors – role and performance

The Tribunal refers to both the Role and Responsibilities of Councillors.

Role

According to the the Local Government Act 2020:

(1) The role of every Councillor is—

(a) to participate in the decision making of the Council; and
(b) to represent the interests of the municipal community in that decision making; and
(c) to contribute to the strategic direction of the Council through the development and review of key strategic documents of the Council, including the Council Plan.

This paper only discusses (a) and (b)

(a) to participate in the decision making of the Council;

Decision-making happens in open Council meetings, closed-door briefings, and now, thanks to the Local Government Act, Councillors acting as delegates to joint Council committees can make decisions without any consultation with their local residents.

Participating in decision-making means reading material, asking questions and voting. That’s it.

The actual work of the Council: garbage collection, fixing potholes, registering pets, processing development applications etc have nothing to do with Councillors. They don’t actually do any work.

(b) to represent the interests of the municipal community in that decision making

Decision-making regarding budgets has been dealt with earlier and there are many other decisions Councillors participate in.

Planning decisions for example. Councillors also attend planning meetings ostensibly to support community objections to various proposals. However, Councillors and residents are equally powerless. Most planning decisions are ruled by State legislation, so residents have little if any, ability to change the outcome. Staff do all the work.

And again, unfortunately there are many community examples of

Councillor votes that have not represented our interests.

Footscray Park

One particularly high-profile issue was the long-running saga regarding Maribyrnong Council’s vote to proceed with a soccer stadium at Footscray Park, on recommendation from Council officers. It took nine months of concerted picketing, fund-raising and Council meeting attendances for residents to be heard. Council officers and Councillors joined forces against residents to the point where a public meeting on the issue had to be moved to Footscray University and security guards employed because Councillors were concerned for their safety.

Ratepayers Victoria believes residents who feel heard, understood and valued don’t pose any threat to Councillors or staff.

Eventually, Council decided to form a taskforce of community members. (Does the Tribunal understand the irony of this?) The task force recommended against the Proposal and Councillors eventually voted against it.

(redacted)

A quote:

“….I don’t feel like the community itself was represented equally and I realise that we (Council) set the rules and you guys played by them but it is very notable that all 5 members were part of the Save Footscray Group…….”¹⁴

This Councillor was quite entitled to vote against the Proposal, but we all found it quite entertaining and ironic to have a Councillor complain that Council rules were used against them.

Because mostly, it’s us, the residents who are rendered powerless by Councillor’s policies and Officer procedures.

Performance

The Local Government Act has a few words on how Councillors should perform their Role but there are no references to Integrity, Transparency or Accountability. ¹⁵

We also note that there are no Key Performance Indicators for Councillors.

Integrity

Ratepayers Victoria believes the overall standard of integrity among Councillors falls far short of what should be required in a modern democracy.

Ratepayers’ Victoria notes key areas subject to Councillor misuse such as reimbursements, credit card use and travel expenses which were raised in the Victorian Auditor General’s report of 2019 into fraud and corruption in Local Government ¹⁶ are also raised in the LGI Survey conducted for this Determination.¹⁷

^{Figure 12: Risk ratings of some common issues in audited councils}

Misuse of public funds is not acceptable and until audits demonstrate integrity in these areas, there should be no increase in allowances.

Special mention of superannuation

While on the subject of integrity we wish to raise discussion about the issue of Councillor Superannuation.
Councillors are not employees and therefore are not entitled to superannuation. Yet the Tribunal’s own Consultation Paper reveals that Council staff have gone above and beyond normal procedure to ensure Councillors are paid superannuation. Councils have found ways under either the Taxation Act or the Superannuation Guarantee Act, to ensure they can pay Councillors superannuation they are not entitled to under the Local Government Act.

This is obvious legal but that doesn’t make it honest.

Conclusion on superannuation

Ratepayers Victoria maintains Councillor superannuation illustrates the collusion that can occur between Councillors and Officers to deliver excessive outcomes for either party against the best interests of residents. We ask the Tribunals’ Determination to recommend the practice end.

Transparency

The Victorian Ombudsman’s ‘Report into the Transparency of Local Government Decision Making’ in 2016 provides detailed evidence of how many decisions are made out of public view and how little time and attention residents are afforded.¹⁸

Residents who are not actively engaged in Council activities would be unaware of the amount of time Councillors spend in closed briefings and closed meetings. In particular, they would be unaware that it is common practice for Councillors to have a ‘meeting’ before the ordinary monthly Council meeting where all the main items are discussed and decided on before the public meeting.

It is unacceptable and also unnecessary.

Accountability

There most common way Councils determine accountability for Councillors is by keeping attendance records for meetings. Yet non-attendance incurs no penalties.

One Monash Councillor was absent for 11 meetings out of 12 with no action because of support from the Mayor (who is responsible for Councillor discipline.)

Political party allegiances also allow Councillors to miss meetings without jeopardising the outcome of Council votes on issues or policies.
In 2017 the Auditor General audited Local Government Victoria with regards community engagement practices in local councils.¹⁹

To paraphrase the Findings, most Councils had policies for community engagement but failed to actually implement them or review whether they worked.

All Councils are required to conduct an annual Community Satisfaction survey. Many Councils use Metropolis Consultants (at an average cost of about $30,000) to conduct this survey. The questions are standardized and the results are mostly bland.

As an example, this graph demonstrates static performance levels over a period of 15 years.

This year’s report trumpets an all-time high of 6.99.²⁰ Given satisfaction levels range from 0-10, residents think an increase of less than one per cent is not really anything to be proud of.

Councillors and the CEO representing community interest

Under the Local Government Act 2020 the Council CEO is solely responsible and accountable for all operations, including Budgets and staff performance.

Therefore the only practical way Councillors can demonstrate good outcomes from their peformance, is through their performance management of the CEO.

Councillors are responsible for hiring and firing CEO’s, reviewing and setting their CEO wage and managing CEO performance.

This is all done behind closed doors.

The 2019 report from the Local Government Inspectorate indicates an ad-hoc, and unskilled approach from Councillors across Victoria regarding CEO management.²¹

Various reports by government bodies demonstrate how poorly Councils perform their public responsibilities, indicating poor management of Council operations and staff by the CEO and poor management of the CEO performance by Councillors.

2021

• Victorian Auditor-General’s report on how well Councils are managing local roads indicates many areas require improvement, most notably how Councils keep track of road conditions and maintenance schedules.²²

2020

• Ombudsman’s report into Outsourcing of Local Government Parking Fines. And the recent follow-up shows several Councils have failed to make improvements.²³
• VAGO report into sexual harassment in Councils found Councils were failing to provide workplaces safe from sexual harassment.²⁴

2019

• Ombudsman’s follow-up on Council management of complaints described glacial improvements from the initial 2015 report. The Ombudsman has now issued guides for Councils on how to manage complaints.²⁵
• Victoria Auditor-General Audit of Councils’ Asset Management found:

The audited councils do not have enough comprehensive and accurate information to support asset planning²⁶

Issues raised in support of allowance increase

Brief responses relating to various issues in documents presented to the Tribunal

Local Government Inspectorate Survey

Letter to the Tribunal from Local Government Minister Shaun Leane

Remuneration Tribunal Discussion Paper

Submission Summary and Requests

You, the members of the Tribunal, are free to make any Determination you choose.

Local Government Minister Shaun Leane has already given you written permission to ignore government policies and regulations. Reports from VAGO and the Ombudsman show Councillors and Officers regularly fall short of standards expected in the Local Government Act as well as Codes and Guidelines, all of which exist to promote integrity and efficiency.

This submission shows the real impact of any Determination on residents cannot be modelled or estimated because there is no data available on the current impact of the current rates.

It also shows that Councillors and Officers believe their spending priorities for our income (via rates) are more important than our own.

In their own words, Councillors (and some public servants) regard more money as an automatic solution to almost every problem they encounter.

Therefore Ratepayers Victoria concludes the only way to provoke the necessary improvements in Council performance is to apply swift and meaningful financial consequences for Councillors.

Ratepayers Victoria makes the following requests for the Tribunal’s Determination:

1. Councillor positions are voluntary and not to be equated with full-time employment since they carry no risk and no responsibilities.
2. Disappointment that Councils subverted the Local Government Act to provide superannuation to Councillors.
3. Expectation that Councils will stop providing superannuation and that allowances will not be increased to make up for the loss of superannuation. There will be no increase in allowances for Councillors or Mayors until after the next general round of Local Government Elections in 2024.
4. There will be no separate, stipulated allowance for Deputy Mayors.
5. Councils should engage meaningfully with residents and agree on simple, effective performance indicators for Councillors, as well as any appropriate consequences. Any indexation will be based on the current level and be set at the prevailing ABS CPI (not the Victorian Treasury forecast.)
6. In the intervening period between the Determination and the next Council elections, residents be made aware of, and given the opportunity to debate whether Councillor allowances should be more appropriately determined by their local Council.

And as you decide we ask you to remember that we, not Councillors, are the community you pledge to serve as public servants.

We thank you for considering this submission,

Ratepayers Victoria

---

¹ Essential Services Commission Report on the Outcomes of Ratecapping – May 2021.p10
² https://knowyourcouncil.vic.gov.au/councils/maribyrnong/reports/summary
³ https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/finance/household-financial-r…
⁴ https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/taxation-statistics-2018-19/resource/d…
⁵ https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/cen… ?opendocument
⁶ https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/extended-melbourne-lockdown-keep-victori…
⁷ https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/our-impact/investigation-reports/inves…
⁸ Email response from DJPR to Verity Webb (attached at Appendix A)
⁹ https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/public-participation-and-community-…-
¹⁰ https://www.land.vic.gov.au/valuations/valuations-for-rate-and-land-tax…
¹¹ https://vcat.vic.gov.au
¹² https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/investigating-corruption/IBAC-examinations/…
¹³ Video can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/MRGrp/posts/1730469660470776
¹⁴ Councillor Megan Bridger-Darling Maribyrnong City Council Special Development Special committee meeting 26/11/2019
¹⁵ Local Government Act 2020 Section 28(a)
¹⁶ https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/fraud-and-corruption-control-local-…
¹⁷ P32.
¹⁸ https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/our-impact/investigation-reports/inves…
¹⁹ https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/public-participation-and-community-…-
²⁰ https://www.maribyrnong.vic.gov.au/News/Maribyrnong-community-satisfact…
²¹ https://www.lgi.vic.gov.au/managing-employment-cycle-council-ceo
²² https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/maintaining-local-roads?section=
²³ https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/our-impact/investigation-reports/outso…
²⁴ https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/sexual-harassment-local-government?…
²⁵ https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/file_uploads/Revisiting_councils_and_…
²⁶ https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/local-government-assets-asset-manag…

Appendix A: Email from LGV regarding hardship data

Appendix B: MaRRG (Maribyrnong Residents and Ratepayers Association) Budget submission 18062020

Budget submission FY21 from Maribyrnong Residents and Ratepayers Group

Introduction

The Maribyrnong City Council Draft Budget for 20/21FY follows the same pattern of revenue raising and spending from the previous year, despite the fact the Australian people and the national economy have been subjected to major adverse impacts from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Council’s own Budget says “Councils should engage with communities to determine how to prioritise resources and balance service provision against other responsibilities such as asset maintenance and capital works.”

Seeking a full 2% rate rise, allocating only $1.9m to ‘rate relief’ and adding only 2% to pensioner rate discounts demonstrates Council staff and Councillors have so far failed to prioritise resources towards residents at a time of extreme and widespread personal hardship.

High increases in compliance costs, media and PR and maintaining $1m expense on a theoretical arts centre adds insult to the neglect of local residents by allocating spending on Council-focussed activities rather than resident needs.

The document below outlines the people’s budget for the FY21, with no rate rise and more relief for pensioners and residents.

Residents and Ratepayers look forward to discussing these issues at the public budget meeting in June and to a sympathetic vote on the Budget in July.

Regards,
The committee of the Maribyrnong Residents and Ratepayers’ Group:
Arthur Bregiannis, Jo Canny, Stephen Hansby, Maria Stogiannis, Verity Webb and Robert Wiatrowski.

Main priorities for budget changes to be approved by councillors

Expenses:

1. 0% rate rise this year :cost = $1.9m
2. Pensioner concession increase to $500 = additional $1.2m
3. Waste charge at last year’s rate ($157.65) or only slightly higher because Govt landfill levy increase being delayed. No cost because waste charge only covers cost of service and since levy is not going up, then no extra cost.
4. Municipal charge to increase to $200. Revenue raised to be offset with corresponding decrease in the cents in the dollar for residential rates calculations.

Savings:

5. Staff pay rises restricted to the ABS Australian average of 2.1%= ($2m)
6. Directors and managers pay cut 10%= ($700,000-which may be included in the above $2m figure)
7. No allowance increase for councillors =(included in 6. above)
8. Savings in Materials and services = ($700,000)
9. Savings in Capital works budget =($3m)
10. Cancellation of the Major Projects and Strategic Relationships service =($709,000)

In addition there’s a further $3m at least Council proposes to pull from the Contributions funds (previous rates) which should not be expended. These are identified in brackets in the capital works detailed explanation below.

STAFF
General Staff – Savings $2,000,000

Council will re-negotiate pay rises to reflect the ABS Australian wage average of 2.1% P48

(Please note that Council is paying nearly $300,000 in FBT on cars for senior staff. Private enterprise can figure out how to provide cars without FBT - but apparently the Council cannot.)

Also note that MaRRG is not recommending freezing staff pay, unlike the Federal Government, which has directed a pay freeze for all federal public servants until April 2021.

Council’s official Qand A response on the 6.72% increase in salaries for staff is not credible.

“This is due to a number of factors. Although the Enterprise Agreement is 2.25%, most staff are on a banded salary and if they meet their KPI’s they move up a band. This movement adds to the cost of salaries. There are also some vacancies that need to be filled, and these are likely to be recruited for during 2020/21.”

a) Staff do not have independent performance reviews - they self-report, so all staff automatically meet their KPIs.
b) The banded agreements have always existed and staff salaries only increased 3.4%last year.
c) It is likely the remainder of the increase is from new staff or factors Council is unwilling to disclose. In either case, ratepayers should not be funding new staff, or secret expenditure.
d) Staffing costs now comprise more than 50% of rate revenue. This is financially unsustainable and therefore Council must address systemic problems with staffing structure and numbers to remain fiscally viable.

In response to Council’s automated response of ‘we’re a service organisation’ The majority of staff are not providing services to residents, so restricting the increase in staff pay rises will not unduly harm or change services to residents.

Community services staff comprise only $18.4m of total staff budget of $52.4m
Clips below from Budget p36 also shows Community Services has the lowest number of full-time staff and the highest number of temporary staff, so the pay rise will benefit more staff performing managerial and administrative roles than staff who are actually working in, and for, the community.

Directors and Managers - Savings approximately $700,000.

Directors and Managers will demonstrate courage, leadership and integrity by volunteering to take a 10% pay cut on their current pay as at June 29th, 2020. At this particular time when Australia is in recession, it is imperative that those in charge at Council demonstrate leadership to their own staff and empathy with their community. The pay cut may also serve as a reminder to Directors and Managers of their poor prioritisation of Council’s spending priorities and poor effectiveness of overall Council management.

The savings could possibly be higher than estimated here, because salaries are not outlined in the Budget; only in the Financial Year statement. The amounts below are from June 2019.

24 MANAGERS = $5M and 13 senior officers = $2m

MATERIALS AND SERVICES – savings $700,000

This is non-staff costs, mostly comprising contracts, overheads and consumables. Overview below from p48 of budget.

Compliance, media, arts and culture, major projects savings = $763,000
None of these four areas are worthy of being prioritised for higher expenses at any time - definitely not in the current economic climate.

Not itemised but hidden somewhere in materials and services (possibly in the four areas already outlined for savings are:
$30,000 for membership to the Western Tourism Board, which has so far hosted a lunch for journalists.
Also $7,000 for membership to the Intercultural Cities Program (headquartered in Belgium) and associated on costs for staff training and “An Intercultural Maribyrnong Symbol of Recognition, reflecting local context” which will probably turn up in the Capital Works budget at some point.

Materials and services is a very vague area of the budget. Residents and Councillors have no idea what these costs are for, contracts are not itemised and it’s impossible to tell which materials and services are for staff, and which are for residents. (for example there’s $1.4m in the capital works program for IT for Council, but there could be further IT costs in materials and services.)

Note: Any items in materials above that are subject to contract should have ‘force majeure’ clauses in the contracts, which allow for contracts to be cancelled under extraordinary circumstances.

If Council is negotiating and signing contracts that force public funds to be expended on projects and services that are no longer necessary, are not fit for purpose or are unable to be cancelled in extreme circumstances, residents could view this as irresponsible management of public funding.

CAPITAL WORKS - savings $3m
p52 onwards

Any items in capital works below which are subject to contract should have ‘force majeure’ clauses in the contracts, which allow for contracts to be cancelled under extraordinary circumstances.

If Council is negotiating and signing contracts that force public funds to be expended on projects and services no longer necessary, or fit for purpose or unable to be cancelled in extreme circumstances, residents could deem this to be irresponsible management of public funding.

If Councillors read the Capital works section of the Budget, keeping in mind the many and separate staffed Council areas, it becomes clear there is significant cost duplication. There are some overlapping work areas - and in other areas, it’s clear there are staff with administrative capabilities only so ratepayers are forced to pay extra to receive the actual service.

Staffing areas with duplicate capital works costs

Strategic Planning $2.1m

• preparing framework and precinct plans for activity centres and strategic redevelopment sites

City Design $662,000

• Developing masterplans for activity centres, precincts and streetscape projects.

Open Space Planning $739,000

• manage and develop masterplans to improve public open space,
• leads the acquisition of land for new open space
• manages expenditure from the Open Space Contributions reserve
• plans and designs all open space projects in the capital works program.

Building Service Compliance $500,000

• regulates and enforces building controls, ensuring building sites are safe.
• conducting inspections to ensure compliance with building permits
• enforcing the Building Act 1993, Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, and the National Construction Code 2016.

Arboriculture $1.6m

• manage and maintain trees in parks and reserves.
• deliver street and park tree planting programs ????? At a council meeting in May Councillors approved a $2.4m contract for an outside company to plant trees, $1.2m 20/21 which is somewhere in the cap works.)

The Civil Works team $3.4m

• maintains Council’s roads, reserve, footpaths and drainage infrastructure.
• implement the Road Management Plan
• Implement asset protection system,
• maintain Council’s Road Register.
• The team also plans and delivers an annual road maintenance program.

Capital Projects Delivery 587,000

• building refurbishments and new buildings,
• constructing roads, laneways , carparks, footpaths and drainage systems.
• manages all urban space projects including both design and constructions of wharves, pontoons, parks and open space .

Cancel the Major Projects and Strategic Relationships Service . Savings = 709,000

Official QandA response

The Major Projects and Strategic Relationship service involves Council representing the interests of the community on State and Federal Government projects such as the West Gate Tunnel Project, Melbourne Metro and Defence Site Maribyrnong redevelopment project. This involves facilitating Council comments on these projects, liaison with State led project partners and stakeholders to negotiate best outcomes for the City of Maribyrnong.

The official description of the service and official responses from the QandA fail to confirm whether this ‘service’ is staff or contractors, or specialised lobbyists. (Or, heaven forbid, ‘bribe money’.)
Regardless, the ‘service’ essentially describes an overarching responsibility of Council and Councillors, together with community advocacy. Requiring extra spending on a vague service indicates Councils’ senior officers and Councillors are incapable of conducting proper advocacy on behalf of their community.
Ratepayers should not pay extra because Council staff or Councillors are incapable or unwilling, to perform competently.

Download a copy of this submission:

Ratepayers Victoria

PDF 783.77 KB

(opens in a new window)

Dear Sir

I do NOT want an increase in councillor and mayor allowances.

Currently this is not the time for pay rises. Communities are suffering financially and emotionally.

The community have just received their rates notices and now have to bare the increases.

Allowances to Mayors and councillors is totally irresponsible at this time.

Councils need to look at their operations and think about the PEOPLE in their LGA.

Thank you

Resident, rate payer and voter

Sandra Taylor
Nth Ward
Moreland City.

(redacted)

Sandra Taylor

PDF 100.63 KB

(opens in a new window)

Good morning,

I am emailing you to request that you do not increase the councillor pay at this time, due to the current COVID restrictions.

With so many small businesses shut and families hurting financially I believe this it is inappropriate for our councilors to receive an increase.

Thanks
Sharyn

Sharyn More

PDF 60.25 KB

(opens in a new window)

I do not want mayor's and councillors to be given a pay rise.

It is a disgrace to society when this money needs to be put into community services to help the less fortunate in this current crisis.

Sharyn Saxon

Sharyn Saxon

PDF 58.82 KB

(opens in a new window)

Sustainability Action Network [SAN]
PO Box 517
Neutral Bay Junction 2089

Mon 16 Aug 2021 Recipient: 613IRTa1

REF: AAEMHGn1 in the public interest Y/R: BMIN-2-21-11734

Warren McCANN
E: localgovernment@remunerationtribunal.vic.gov.au
Chair
Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal
S1, Ground Floor, 1 Treasury Place Melbourne 3000

Please find attached the Submission from members of the Sustainability Action Network [SAN] for the

“The Victorian Local Government Proposed Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors”

This Submission has been placed On-line here for speedy reference to the On-line links

Part of the submission is a need for Key Performance Indicators [PKIs] for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillor allowance for not only addressing the COVID-19 issue but possibly also for Waste Management and Climate Change issues

These KPIs could be monitored by the Rate-Payers if the details of the Processes and the Performances can be provided On-line as part of the Council web-site.

This will not only enhance local Communication and Information Technology [CIT] skills but provide also the impetus for Rate-payers to review the Council web-site to understand and assist with Council applications and possibly provide a better bang-per-buck for Council rate-payers

Yours sincerely

Peter Axtens LLB (Retired) Stephen Gould
Chair Public Officer
Sustainability Action Network [SAN]

W: www.oic.org/SAN/

---

Submission to: “The Victorian Local Government Proposed Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors”

Index

1. Reviewing the Submission Brief
2. Organisation making this Submission
3. Management Summary
   1. Councillors have Waste Management, Climate Change and COVID-19 issues
   2. Understanding COVID-19 long term costs
   3. Many organisations not just Councils have long term COVID-19 costs
   4. Utilising new technologies to monitor and record offsets
4. Response to Brief Consultation Questions

A. Reviewing the submission brief:

“The Ministerial Statement on local government articulates the Government’s future priorities for the local government sector, including the critical role of councils in Victoria’s pathway through social and economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal may wish to consider whether the priorities identified in this statement should be taken into account in determining councillor allowances.?

Consultation questions

Without limiting the matters persons or bodies may wish to raise in a submission, the Tribunal is particularly interested in receiving submissions on the following questions.

Roles of Council members

What are the most important duties and responsibilities of Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors?

How have the roles and responsibilities of Council members changed since the last review of Councillor allowances in 2008?

What future challenges may emerge?

How are Council member roles affected by a Council’s electoral structure (for example, ward structure or ratio of Council members to population)?

Purpose of allowances

What is, or should be, the purpose of allowances for Council members?

Allowance category factors

What factors should be considered when allocating Councils to allowance categories?

Is the existing system, in which Councils are allocated to categories based on population and

revenue, appropriate?

Adequacy of allowances

Are current allowance values adequate, for example to:

• attract suitable candidates to stand for Council?
• reflect the costs (e.g. time commitment) and benefits of Council service?
• support diversity amongst Council members and potential candidates?

Superannuation

How, if at all, should superannuation be considered in determining allowance values?

Comparators

The Tribunal is required to consider allowances for persons elected to ‘voluntary part-time community bodies’ when making the Determination.

Which bodies should the Tribunal consider, and why?

The Tribunal is also required to consider similar allowances for elected members of local government bodies in other States.

Which States are particularly relevant (or not) for this purpose, and why?

Financial impacts

What are the financial impacts of varying allowance values for Council members?

B. Organisation making submission

This submission is made by Members of Sustainability Action Network [SAN] of the Open Interchange Consortium [OIC]

The OIC was formed in 1994 by members including Ourworld Global Network [OGN], Commonwealth Bank, AIDC and Halisa International Network [HIN] , dedicated to assisting Large , Medium and Small Enterprises through regular monthly meetings, specific Interest Groups such as XML Special Interest Group [XZIG] and On-line project tenders to understand and benefit from Electronic Information Technologies [EIT]

In 1997 foundation members developed an XML application called “Electronic Association Information Management [EAIM]” which included Electronic Committee Information Management [ECIM] with the Special Interest Groups utilising ECIM

One of those Special Interest Groups was the Local Government Interest Group [LZIG]

In 2000 OIC members worked together to submit a response to a 9 Council Syndicate for an Application Integration Project which include eBusiness and the Internet

In 2001 the Federal Government Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business [DEWRSB] joined the OIC to commission a joint-venture to promote an understanding of XML to 172 NSW Local Government Agencies

In 2006/7 OIC members worked with Mosman Council on understanding Sustainability issues and formed the Sustainability Action Network [SAN]

As a result of this understanding of Local Government applications SAN members submitted a number of On-line responses to local Government initiatives including:

1. the North Sydney Council Community Engagement Strategy [CES]
2. the Inner West Council Draft Climate & Renewables Strategy

C. Management Summary

1. Councillors have Waste Management, Climate Change and COVID-19 issues
2. Understanding COVID-19 long term costs
3. Many Community organisations not just Councils have long term COVID-19 costs
4. Utilising new technologies to monitor and record offsets

a. Councillors have Waste Management, Climate Change and as well as COVID-19 issues

Councils have a number of challenges over the next 10 years which few have appeared to identify properly in their published 10-year plans on their web-sites

These Challenges include stimulating new community work initiatives for local economies. managing waste more effectively for Climate Change Greenhouse Gases reduction policies, providing more effective rate-payer value and encouraging higher qualified candidates to run for Council positions

This submission tries to address these issues by proposing that the Role of a Councillor becomes a Ward Resource Co-ordinator who encourages Street Co-ordinators to Participate in the local democracy by managing local volunteer resources and waste far more effectively and creating a local economy credits system that can be spent in local shops

b. Understanding COVID-19 long term costs

There are many aspects of long term COVID-19 costs that are difficult to quantify

Whilst the newspapers have tried to quantify costs eg Article 12 Oct 2020 “The COVID-19 Pandemic and the US$ 16 Trillion Virus”

“The SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic is the greatest threat to prosperity and well-being the US has encountered since the Great Depression.

This Viewpoint aggregates mortality, morbidity, mental health conditions, and direct economic losses to estimate the total cost of the pandemic in the US on the optimistic assumption that it will be substantially contained by the fall of 2021.

These costs far exceed those associated with conventional recessions and the Iraq War, and are similar to those associated with global climate change.

However, increased investment in testing and contact tracing could have economic benefits that are at least 30 times greater than the estimated costs of the investment in these approaches.

Since the onset of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in March, 60 million claims have been filed for unemployment insurance.

Before COVID-19, the greatest number of weekly new unemployment insurance claims (based on data from 1967 on) was 695 000 in the week of October 2, 1982.

For 20 weeks beginning in late March 2020, new unemployment claims exceeded 1 million per week; as of September 20, new claims have been just below that amount………...

The above article is about the United States of America and the same issues apply to every Country throughout the World

According to the Guardian Newspaper 11 May 2021 “The 2021 Federal Budget reveals huge cost of Au$311 Billion cost of COVID to the Australian Economy”

However the major cost was for Economic stimulus packages like “Jobkeeper” and “Jobseeker” and does not include the Economic costs of State Government lockdowns and the costs of establishing on-going testing locations

Hence Councils have to set the example for the rest of the Community to follow as to how to offset COVID-19 costs, manage waste more effectively and progress as Community networks

c. Many Community organisations not just Councils have long term COVID-19 costs

There is a plethora of community networks which will have long-term COVID-19 cost including Business Associations, Chambers of Commerce, sports clubs, body corporates, RSLs, school meetings as well as Councils and different Council committees

Just in the last Olympics in Tokyo 2021 there were over 339 different medal events and this does not include various other sports and pastimes which have regular meetings

All of these organisations could benefit if committee meetings both physical and On-line could be recorded as that Community Asset

d. Utilising new technologies to monitor and record offsets

Most Communities that have meeting record the Minutes these days produce them on PCs or terminals

It is now a simple process to put those minutes On-line so that the members can review the minutes

All Sports Communities, Council Communities and Councils in Australia also have extensive Volunteering at regular Committee meetings whereby the minutes record the attendees, preparation of reports and actual time spent by Volunteers at these committee meetings

These Committee activities should be included as an Asset in the Economic Value of that Community

Indeed with repeated COVID-19 outbreaks, many of these meetings could be performed On-line or by Zoom meetings hence should be included as Economic Contributions

This issue of the Economic Value of participation in On-line Committees was recognised by the foundation members of the Open Interchange Consortium [OIC] at the inaugural AGM minutes and members’ mandates in 1996

Following that AGM OIC members developed a number of On-line services including Electronic Committee Information Management [ECIM]

ECIM was based on research carried out with Hampton School Rugby Old Boys, South Sydney Council, South Sydney Chamber of Commerce and a joint-venture with the British Standards Institute [BSI] which printed and posted out over 1,000,000 pieces of paper annually to members of over 350 national and international committees

The research by OIC members into ECIM included hourly Accreditation credits for Electronic Committee Participation as used by Electronic Business [eBXML] Australia 2000-2002 for telephone conference meetings around Australia and Hong Kong

NZ councils have elected councillors and community boards

1. NZ Councils elected Community Boards
2. North Sydney Council 26 Precinct system espoused by Mayor Ted MACK
3. Volunteer Participation as Community Assets

a. NZ councils elected community boards

Further to our emails about the Australian research on the Economic Value of Volunteers for each state on 15 Jun 2021 and valued in 2013 at $ 25 Billion per annum in email 14 July 2021 you may be interested in reviewing how New Zealand Councils have elected Community Boards many chaired by elected Councillors

NZ Example 1: Whakatane Council

1 elected Mayor, 10 elected Councillors with 20 elected members for 6 Community Boards providing multiple committee meetings each month

And these are the On-line committee meeting dates

July 2021 – 7 committee meetings

Jun 2021 – 8 Committee Meetings

May 2021 – 9 Committee Meetings

Unfortunately all the agendas and minutes of meeting are On-line PDF files that have to be downloaded to be read. - none of the minutes are documents that can be read On-line by other interested members of those Communities

Compare those On-line PDF minutes with the On-line minutes of an Electronic Business [ebXML] Australia meeting nearly 20 years ago on 05 Feb 2002 of the Marketing Strategy Work Group chaired by Mark BEZZINA Director of Communications, IT and eCommerce at Standards Australia – his changes to the draft minutes are included in blue

This is a link to the members and their attendance records of Electronic Business [ebXML] Australia which could be used by every Council/Sports Club/Body Corporate Committee to show On-line attendance with COVID-19 travel restrictions

For some reason Standards Aus cancelled all other scheduled 2002 ebXML Meetings after that 05 Feb 2002 meeting !

NZ Example 2: Selwyn District Council

Another example is Selwyn District Council which has 1 mayor and 12 Councillors and over 70 listed Committees with regular meetings and PDF minutes

NZ Example 3: Christchurch City Council

Christchurch City Council has 15 councillors with 7 Community Boards comprising – 52 elected Volunteer members

However recently some New Zealand Councils have published Councillor and Committee Participation Remuneration schemers which appear to add considerable Rate-payer costs without any Key Performance Indicators [PKIs] such as waste management to justify the large salaries eg Auckland Council elected member remuneration scheme, Christchurch Councillors Pay rise and Tauranga Council

b. North Sydney Council 26 Precinct system espoused by Mayor Ted Mack

In 1974 Ted MACK was elected as initially as an Alderman and then as Mayor from 1980-1988 on North Sydney Council and espoused the principles of “Participatory Democracy” whereby “Citizens have a right to participate in local precinct issues”

Ted established 26 Precincts in the North Sydney Local Government Area and now this Precinct system is under review, possibly because North Sydney Volunteers are no longer fulfilling all the roles necessary to maintain the value of the precincts.

As the reports on the “Economic Value of Volunteering” to the 5 State Governments by Dr Duncan IRONMONGER indicate that a Volunteer hour is now valued at over $ 35.00/hr, recent COVID-19 large-scale community shutdowns dictate we must use technology to record Volunteer participation as a Community Asset rather than leave Communities in perpetual debt under current accounting processes

D Response to brief consultation questions

A. Roles of Council members

QA1 What are the most important duties and responsibilities of Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors?

AA1 : Encouraging the local Community to participate in Council discussion making with the Councillors chairing various Committees whereby the Committee Minutes and reports can be reviewed On-line form home computers and NOT AS PDF FILES THAT HAVE TO BE DOWNLOADED

QA2 How have the roles and responsibilities of Council members changed since the last review of Councillor allowances in 2008?

AA2 The Roles and Responsibilities of Council members have changed dramatically since 2008 in that Councils have implemented far more sophisticated Information systems with most Councils providing Councils minutes On-line mainly as PDF files

In addition many Councils are encouraging their local communities to participate as Volunteers in a number of spheres as Councils become more “Entrepreneurial” re the 1993 Australian Model of Government”

QA3 What future challenges may emerge?

AA3 The key issues for many future challenges are how to cope with further COVID-19 issues and maintain financial credibility with rate-payers

Judging by the number of Councillor payments schemes implemented by local councils in New Zealand eg Auckland Council and Tauranga Council as well as Western Australia Councils then Council rate-payers should be reviewing their local Council websites

QA4 How are Council member roles affected by a Council’s electoral structure (for example, ward structure or ratio of Council members to population)?

AA4 Councillors should be responsible for set areas each with the similar numbers of council rate-payers

B. Purpose of allowances

BQ1 What is, or should be, the purpose of allowances for Council members?

BA1 The Council is a business and the Councillors should have Key Performance Indicators[KPIs] which include Waste Management, Climate Change and Community wellbeing PKIs

C. Allowance category factors

CQ1 What factors should be considered when allocating Councils to allowance categories?

CA1 Allowance categories should include Waste Management, Climate Change improvements and local Community Participation Credits

CQ2 Is the existing system, in which Councils are allocated to categories based on population and revenue, appropriate?

CA2 It needs to be enlarged to include Waste Management, Climate Change improvements and local Community Participation Credits

D. Adequacy of allowances

DQ1 Are current allowance values adequate, for example to:

• attract suitable candidates to stand for Council?
• reflect the costs (e.g. time commitment) and benefits of Council service?
• support diversity amongst Council members and potential candidates?

DA1 No because they do not include any Key Performance Indicators [PKI] and hence probably do not attract the best candidates

E. Superannuation

EQ1 How, if at all, should superannuation be considered in determining allowance values?

EA1 As we understand it according to this web-site Victorian Councillors do receive the Superannuation Guarantee

Superannuation Guarantee
Mayoral and councillor allowances are also subject to the addition of the equivalent of the superannuation guarantee (9.5%). Note that this percentage is scheduled to increase to 10% from 1 July 2021.

EQ2 How, if at all, should superannuation be considered in determining allowance values?

EA2 Superannuation should be considered particularly if each Local Council can accumulate the Superannuation as an Asset for future community purchases

F. Comparators

The Tribunal is required to consider allowances for persons elected to ‘voluntary part-time community bodies’ when making the Determination.

FQ1 Which bodies should the Tribunal consider, and why?

FA1 Any Community Body that is prepared to implement and On-line Electronic Committee Information Management system so that local community members can review the minutes On-line

The Tribunal is also required to consider similar allowances for elected members of local government bodies in other States.

FQ2 Which States are particularly relevant (or not) for this purpose, and why?

FA2 All Australian and New Zealand local government bodies because people should be able to travel regularly to these location

G. Financial impacts

GQ1 What are the financial impacts of varying allowance values for Council members?

GA1 Judging by the remuneration allowances already granted to New Zealand and Western Australian Councillors, they have added considerable cost for local rate-payers without any way of judging how effective the Councillors are in managing the key community issues for other rate-payers

Sustainability Action Network

PDF 174.04 KB

(opens in a new window)

15/08/2021

By email: localgovernment@remunerationtribunal.vic.gov.au

Dear Mr McCann

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal.

For me the key question your tribunal needs to answer is should Victorian local councillors be treated as amateur or professional.

Currently the role is treated as amateur. However, for the majority or councillors, the time invested is commensurate to a professional position.

Unlike the VFL, which has had a large following in the community, there is no natural constituency to cause the political groundswell to transform the role of councillor from amateur to professional.

You now have a historic opportunity to use a granular method of looking at the hours worked by councillors, how it compares to similar positions, such as a Victorian state member of parliament, then recommend a dramatic yet appropriate increase to the remuneration of Victorian councillors.

This can be done by shifting the remuneration method from paying an allowance to paying a salary.

In my mind, this would in due course attract more professionals to stand for local government office. As an elected position, Victorians deserve to get value for what they contribute through their council rates.

When compared to a Victorian state member of parliament, the disparity is indeed stark.

This is even after accommodating for the separate office building afforded for use, as well as between two and three full time equivalent employees. Yet the MP is treated as professional, and paid a salary between three to five times more than a councillor allowance.

You may know that this wasn’t always the case. The role of MP has evolved as so too should the role of councillor.

The individual financial circumstances of current councillors is one factor you may consider however in my mind remuneration is directly linked to productivity and the best governance results for councils.

Finally, you may also investigate what penalty rates and overtime may apply in this scenario.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this submission further.

Sincerely,

Theo Zographos

Theo Zographos

PDF 391.06 KB

(opens in a new window)

Mr Warren McCann
Chair
Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal
Suite 1, Ground Floor, 1 Treasury Place
Melbourne, VIC 3000

localgovernment@remunerationtribunal.vic.gov.au

Dear Mr McCann

Submission on Councillor Allowances

We write to make this submission in response to the Consultation Paper on the Proposed Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors, published in July 2021.

In making this submission, the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) highlights the important and complex role that councillors perform and trust that Commissioners will give deep consideration to the impact that these allowances play in attracting and retaining diverse and skilled members from communities as elected representatives (councillors).

We respond in order to the Consultation Questions as set out in the Consultation Paper.

1. Roles of Council members

What are the most important duties and responsibilities of Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors?

The Local Government Act 2020 (‘the Act’) has removed much of the prescription contained within the Local Government Act 1989.

The change in legislation has elevated the responsibilities for councillors in relation to the good governance obligations of the role. In particular the overarching governance principles and supporting principles contained in s9 of the Act point to the key accountabilities that councillors must meet in performing the role in the community interest.¹

How have the roles and responsibilities of Council members changed since the last review of Councillor allowances in 2008? What future challenges may emerge?

In addition to the Local Government Act 2020, a raft of legislation (for example the Gender Equality Act 2020 and the Climate Change Act 2017) are emblematic of increased complexity in the environment within which the Council operates and point to significant new responsibilities for local government (including for elected representatives).

The complexities of the modern world (incl. social, climate, and technology) have raised the level of conceptual and strategic thinking required in the councillor role.

However, there has not been a diminution in the critical thinking that attaches to the traditional oversight and review functions in role of councillor. Indeed, such absence of prescription requires that councillors (individually and collectively) be more alert to the range of risks confronting the organisation.

There are a range of such tensions between the roles of advocacy and governance oversight and we believe these deserve attention in the fixing of allowances.

How are Council member roles affected by a Council’s electoral structure (for example, ward structure or ratio of Council members to population)?

We submit that councillor roles will almost inevitably be stretched between the functions of strategy and oversight. Whilst the electoral structure will certainly play a role, other factors including culture, articulation of roles and responsibilities, and electoral structure will certainly affect the roles played by councillors.

However, that may play out locally, we consider that the driving factor in fixing allowances ought be the role and accountabilities as set out in the Act. These are the accountabilities against which roles ought to be defined and performance and conduct held to account.

2. Purpose of allowances

What is, or should be, the purpose of allowances for Council members?

It is clear that the councillor allowance is (just as it is named) an allowance and not a salary.

That said, we submit that the allowance achieves a range of purposes as follows:

• acknowledges the level of responsibility and inconvenience attached to the role; ­
• recognises the hours of work required:
• 70% of councillors dedicate more than 16 hours per week to their role, with nearly one fifth spending more than 32 hours per week on their role.)².
• To illustrate the modest nature of the allowance– a councillor at a Category 2 council being paid the highest rate in that bracket would be paid $25.24/hour ($26,245 annually; based on 20 hours/week x 52 weeks = 1040 hours)
• compensates for potential lost income (i.e. hours spent on councillor duties that could have been spent in paid employment); and
• attracts a higher calibre and more diverse mix of councillor candidates.

As described elsewhere in this submission, allowances do influence the number and quality of candidates for office in an environment where the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Shaun Leane has announced a review into the culture of local governments.

We also conclude that the topic of councillor allowances does draw predictable media commentary. We submit that it is not a bad thing that the quantum of each allowance is transparent to the community. Looking beyond that noise of critical comment, it is to be hoped that awareness of the allowance and also the demands of the office will support the community to give careful consideration in the exercise of their votes.

The notion of such disclosure is hardly new. The OECD, in relation to Board remuneration found that “The quality and timeliness of disclosures around incentive and remuneration arrangements is also critical to informed shareholder engagement, and providing a level of assurance to minority shareholders that remuneration is structured to align executive and director incentives with the interests of the company as a whole.”³

We submit that a similar dynamic, adapted accordingly, ought to apply to local government.

3. Allowance category factors

What factors should be considered when allocating Councils to allowance categories? Is the existing system, in which Councils are allocated to categories based on population and revenue, appropriate?

We will not make a detailed submission on this question as we believe the Tribunal will receive more detailed comment from other sources.
However, as previously stated, we consider that the driving factor in fixing allowances ought to be the role and accountabilities as set out in the Act.

These are the accountabilities against which roles ought to be defined and performance and conduct held to account.

4. Adequacy of allowances

Are current allowance values adequate, for example to:

• attract suitable candidates to stand for Council?

• reflect the costs (e.g. time commitment) and benefits of Council service? — support diversity amongst Council members and potential candidates?

Our response to this question takes two parts. The first is premised on the complexity of the role; the second on the impact of the allowance on diversity.

Complexity

Without going to a level of detail, quantum of the allowance should be based on the intrinsic factors associated with the role. Some considerations for the Tribunal could include:

Organisation - Wide Factors

• size, nature and turnover
• complexity of operations – Councils routinely deliver around 100 discrete services in a complex environment
• structure and responsibilities of Council, including committees
• risks and challenges of the confronting local governments

Councillor-Specific Factors

• time commitment required
• performance expectations of the role
• inherent emotional intelligence requirements
• involvement in strategic, value-added decision making
• supply and demand – the need to attract and retain qualified people.

Diversity

We submit that the allowance must be at a level which overcomes, to the extent possible, economic barriers to entry by diverse members of communities.

As recognised in the 2008 Panel Report on this topic, “the value of the allowance payable to Council members can have a significant impact on an individual’s decision to stand for Council, with implications for diversity of representation”.⁴

Anecdotally, we know that at least one councillor who resigned in early 2019, before the end of the 2016-2020 term identified the low level of renumeration as a key reason for her resignation. As a young mother on maternity leave at the beginning of her term, the hours suited her well, but once she was in a position to return to work, she found that she was making a significant financial sacrifice in order to serve her community as a councillor. In other words, it was not possible for her to continue to work full time in paid employment while also undertaking councillor duties at a rate of renumeration that was much lower than her regular salary.

In this response we draw heavily from the research by Carson, Ruppanner & Mikolajczak (‘Carson et al’) as set out in Appendix 1 to our submission.⁵ This is a collaboration of La Trobe University, the University of Melbourne and the VLGA, funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage grant.

The ‘voluntary’ nature of local government elected representative roles is a double-edged sword. It is intended to attract candidates that are ‘community-minded’. However, it also precludes a large cross-section of the community whose experiences are just as (if not more, by way of their underrepresentation) valuable as those who can afford to be councillors.

Carson et al found from survey data (of registered candidates in the October 2020 local government elections) that running for council is an older person’s exercise. The typical candidate from the sample is in the range of 38 to 65 years of age. There is also found to be an electoral dividend for those with past council experience, which skews towards men.

Almost half of the women aged between 50-64 indicated that this was their first time running for council compared to about a third (38 per cent) of men in the same age bracket.

The researchers suggest that this indicates that women are more likely to run for government after their children have grown and their careers are well-established or they have retired. Their analysis of analysis of the candidate and councillor survey data reveals important gender differences in work and life roles, particularly when it comes to childcare and employment type (full time, part time, casual) in addition to councillor duties.

Some quotes from the interviews undertaken by Carson et al illustrate this scenario:

‘Juggling being a councillor, having a small child and having work on top of that was really challenging. And I think more challenging than I kind of first imagined.’ (Interview 1, 8 March 2021).

‘I understand that council will pay for babysitters, but I don't want my children in care all the time. And so it was sort of sold to us when we were doing our training and as part of the women in local government that it was family friendly and all this, but it's not. So I feel a little bit tricked.’ (Interview 4, 2 March 2021)

‘Sometimes it just feels like there's not enough hours in the day already. With work, volunteer work, community work, and parenting, and then friendships, partners, things like that, as well.’ (Interview 9, 24 February 2021).

According to the researchers, “both the candidate and councillor data show that it was uncommon for women nominating or being elected to council to be in full-time work, compared to men… It appears that in order to accommodate political activity with other competing roles, the option of full-time work for women is often sacrificed to accommodate parenting, housework and political activity. For some women, however, this trade off may not be an option.”

“I just didn't consider it feasible that I would be able to maintain my current employment responsibilities plus do the work of council … I felt it would have a necessary and direct impact on my ability to earn money on behalf of my family.’ (Interview 7, 5 March 2021).

The VLGA’s project Local Women Leading Change includes training workshops for prospective women candidates. As part of this training, participants discuss the average time spent on councillor duties and the level of renumeration. Almost all participants report this as being a necessary consideration when weighing up whether to stand, with many participants deciding that their personal circumstances are not compatible due to this factor.

This is echoed in the concerns of other underrepresented cohorts including First Nations people, those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, culturally diverse backgrounds and those with disabilities or caring responsibilities. For many of these community members, the deliberation about whether to stand often ends up as an economic one, or a question of where they may be able to make the most impact (considering informal means of community participation or volunteering).

For the reasons described in this section we submit that significant weight ought be placed on the impact of the allowance in achieving diversity.

5. Superannuation

How, if at all, should superannuation be considered in determining allowance values?

We submit that existing arrangements for payment of superannuation should not be diluted, for the reasons of supporting diversity as outlined elsewhere in this document.

6. Comparators

• The Tribunal is required to consider allowances for persons elected to ‘voluntary part-time community bodies’ when making the Determination. Which bodies should the Tribunal consider, and why?

• The Tribunal is also required to consider similar allowances for elected members of local government bodies in other States. Which States are particularly relevant (or not) for this purpose, and why?

VLGA is not in a position to benchmark remuneration across comparable community bodies and local governments. However, we do point to research undertaken by the Australian Institute of Company Directors regarding the question of payment of directors by ‘not for profit’ entities.⁶

In a Victorian local government context this goes beyond the question of whether councillors ought be paid, but points to compelling grounds for the allowance to be adequate.

7. Financial impacts

What are the financial impacts of varying allowance values for Council members?

We submit that as a proportion of overall expenditure, the allowances paid to Mayors and councillors is not material (i.e. less than 1%).

We acknowledge that many councils do operate with constrained budgets in a rate capped environment, however for any cost there is a compensatory community benefit associated with attracting and retaining a diverse, skilled mix of councillors due to minimising economic barriers to participation.

In summary we note the importance of this review in a context where public commentary through media regarding these allowances often does not fully explore the impact of the adequacy of these allowances on the achievement of public value. We trust that we have been able to provide evidence in support of a level of allowances that recognises the important contribution by elected councillors and overcomes economic barriers to participation.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. We would be pleased to clarify any of the content and can be contacted at kathryn@vlga.org.au.

Yours sincerely

Kathryn Arndt
Chief Executive Officer

---

_{¹ 9 Overarching governance principles and supporting principles
(1) A Council must in the performance of its role give effect to the overarching governance principles.
(2) The following are the overarching governance principles—
(a) Council decisions are to be made and actions taken in accordance with the relevant law
b) priority is to be given to achieving the best outcomes for the municipal community, including future generations;
(c) the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the municipal district, including mitigation and planning for climate change risks, is to be promoted;
(d) the municipal community is to be engaged in strategic planning and strategic decision making;
(e) innovation and continuous improvement is to be pursued;
(f) collaboration with other Councils and Governments and statutory bodies is to be sought;
(g) the ongoing financial viability of the Council is to be ensured;
(h) regional, state and national plans and policies are to be taken into account in strategic planning and decision making;
(i) the transparency of Council decisions, actions and information is to be ensured.(3) In giving effect to the overarching governance principles, a Council must take into account the following supporting principles—
(a) the community engagement principles;
(b) the public transparency principles;
(c) the strategic planning principles;
(d) the financial management principles;
(e) the service performance principles.}

_{² Councillor expenses and allowances: equitable treatment and enhanced integrity, Local Government Inspectorate 2020}

_{³ OECD (2011), Board Practices: Incentives and Governing Risks, Corporate Governance, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264113534-en}

_{⁴ State Government of Victoria (2008) , Local Government (Councillor Renumeration Review) Panel Report, Local Government (Councillor Renumeration Review) Panel Report,}

_{⁵ Appendix 1. Carson, Ruppanner & Mikolajczak, (2021)The Missing Cohort: Women in Local Government in Australia}

_{⁶ ‘Should more NFPs consider paying directors?’, https://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/resources/not-for-profit-resources/nfp-resources/should-more-nfps--consider-paying-directors AICD 2017‘}

Appendix 1 - The Missing Cohort: Women in Local Government

Abstract:

Australia historically lags other democracies on its record of gender representation in parliaments. While Victorian councils achieved a record 43.8 per cent of women elected to councils in 2020, outperforming most federal and state parliamentary tiers, they were still shy of the Victorian government’s local government target of gender parity by 2025. This article uses mixed methods to investigate women’s experiences in running for local government and gender differences in electoral success and experience as a counsellor. The findings reveal a positive story about women’s electability, despite fewer women than men running for office, their success rate is higher. However, the data also shows a missing cohort of younger women. Paid full-time work, childrearing and household responsibilities are key barriers to elected office for younger women. This study contributes to the theme of ‘Parliament as a Gendered Workplace’ and makes recommendations to narrow the gender gap in politics.

Women’s representation in legislatures is an important dimension of justice and equality. It is the human right to participate in public life on an equal basis as men, free of direct or indirect discrimination. Yet, women rarely hold equal representation in elected governments. In Australia, only a third (31.1 per cent) of the federal House of Representative seats are occupied by women. Australia is currently ranked 50th in the world for women’s parliamentary representation in the lower house, a significant fall from 15th in 1999.⁷ Further, even where women's parliamentary presence has significantly increased, they may still find they are unable to perform their representative roles on an equal basis due to a gendered workplace culture.⁸

One bright spot for women’s representation globally is local government, which has achieved higher rates of women’s representation than national parliaments, generally.⁹ Yet, the picture of female representation at the local level in Australia is mixed. The Australian Senate has 51.3 per cent female representation.¹⁰ When combined with the percentage of women in Australia’s lower house, women constitute 37.9 per cent of federal parliamentarians compared to 35 per cent of women elected in local government nation-wide.¹¹

Yet, the latest election figures show Victorian local government is outperforming the national averages of female representation. Women councillors represent 43.8 per cent of Victorian councillors, compared to nationwide averages of women’s parliamentary representation (38.6 per cent) and women in local government (35 per cent).¹²

However, local government holds less power, is more regional and rural, and garners less media attention and thus, is often overlooked as a site for women’s political participation. This omission is deeply problematic as local government plays a critical role in local communities and can be a pipeline into state and federal parliaments.¹³ Understanding women’s experiences at the local level is crucial to mitigating the barriers to equal gender representation at all levels of government. Thus, this article aims to contribute more broadly to scholarship that examines parliament as a gendered workplace by highlighting a potentially detrimental flow-on effect if parity is not achieved at the local level. We use Victoria as a case study to understand barriers to female equality in local politics.

This study combines innovative survey data of Victorian local government candidates in 76 council elections in October 2020 with councillor survey data in December 2020 from those who were subsequently elected. Notably, we find a missing cohort of young women in their prime reproductive years. To better understand factors that may limit younger women’s political representation, we apply role strain theory to investigate if strain associated with balancing competing roles limits younger women’s ability to engage in running for local government.¹⁴

To shed light on the experiences of women in this ‘missing’ group, we interviewed 10 women who were interested in local politics but did not put their hand up to run in 2020. This allowed us to examine how the intensity of competing career and caregiving pressures in women’s early adult years many have limited their ability to seek election to represent their community. Importantly, we also find from Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) election result data that when women do run, they are more likely to succeed than men. Thus, we recommend alleviating the role strain associated with balancing other work and caregiving demands as a key policy mechanism that would likely promote women’s representation in local government and lay a pathway into other parliaments.

The importance of women's representation in local government

Women’s representation in government is a critical component of broader equality that can benefit the economy and government performance. A McKinsey Global Institute report estimated that $12 trillion could be added to global GDP by 2025 by closing the gender gap in public, private and social sectors.¹⁵ It is also estimated that gender equality would boost Australia’s GDP by 11 per cent and the economy would gain $8 billion if women transitioned from tertiary education into the workforce at the same rate as men.¹⁶

Other studies find that increasing the numbers of women can alter the culture of parliamentary workplaces. For example, one study found women take their elected responsibilities very seriously and have lower levels of parliamentary absenteeism than men.¹⁷ Further, parliaments with higher ratios of women to men recorded lower levels of corruption than those with fewer women.¹⁸

Low rates of female participation remain in place across Australia despite strong public support for women politicians across the main parties.¹⁹ This underrepresentation of women is true for both of Australia’s major parties: the centre-left Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Centre-right Liberal and National parties (Coalition).

While the ALP does have party quotas and has achieved 48 per cent female representation in the federal lower house, the Coalition offers a starker example of female underrepresentation. It has fewer women in the federal parliament (20 per cent) than it did more than 20 years ago (25 per cent) under the Howard Government’s second term (2001-2004).²⁰ Presently, neither Coalition partners support gender quotas. The Liberal Party (LP) has a voluntary target to achieve gender parity by 2025.²¹ However, the Coalition does not have adequate numbers of women politicians coming through the pipeline to suggest it can meet its approaching target. As local governments can be important feeders into state and national representation,²² and women underrepresentation at the local level has been found to contribute to women’s continued lack of parity in state and national parliaments,²³ it is important to consider how women experience their roles as politicians in local governments in Australia.

While women are underrepresented in general, it also needs to be acknowledged that women’s representation also varies by age and other characteristics. Understanding representation across the life-course of women is important both for descriptive and substantive representative and the gendered implications for a pipeline to other levels of political representation.

Like other marginalized groups, women have been found to draw upon their lived experiences to inform their policy platforms.²⁴ This means women’s representation across the life-course is critical to inform the policy needs of young, middle and older-aged women. Yet, international and local studies show women’s representation in local government tilts towards later ages (40-59), representation is lower for younger women and those aged over 65.²⁵ Increasing the number of younger women in elected office is critical for descriptive representation and for drawing upon lived experiences to create effective legislation for women (substantive representation). Further, local government is cited by Australian politicians as a useful training ground for representation in state and federal tiers of government.²⁶ If men have larger representation at younger ages and thus are building political experience, it follows that it will remain difficult to achieve gender parity via a pipeline from local government into state and federal parliaments as well. Thus, equalizing gender participation in local government across all ages is critical for equal representation at that governing level, but it may also improve gender representation in other legislative tiers and redress some of the issues related to parliament as a gendered workplace.

The Victorian state government has recognised the importance of gender parity in local government and of promoting an inclusive gender culture through its ‘Safe and Strong’ gender equality strategy that sets a target of 50 per cent women’s representation by 2025.²⁷

This commitment has been supported with mandatory candidate training and funding through the major local government representative bodies, the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) and the Municipal Association Victoria (MAV) to attract more women to local government.

Yet, if there are not adequate numbers of women standing for council elections, these goals will be near impossible to achieve. With exceptions, there is little recent evidence to understand gendered barriers faced by Australian local government candidates, and even less focused on Victoria.²⁸ This research aims to address this gap and to make recommendations to narrow the gender divide in local politics.

Understanding the Barriers to Women’s Entry to Local Government

To understand gendered barriers to women’s representation in local government, we apply a role strain perspective. Role strain theory posits that individuals hold a range of roles that have associated norms, expectations and demands. Individuals can add new roles into their role set that have varying demands. Intense roles are those that place intense demands and foster role overload (e.g., demands of role exceed capacity). Conflicting roles are those whereby demands are difficult to combine with other roles. Women often hold intense and conflicting roles that trigger the stress process, leading to inter-role conflict, burnout and exhaustion.²⁹ The birth of a child provides a powerful example of how a new role triggers the stress process model. The role of mother brings social norms and expectations with intense demands that often contribute to role overload.³⁰ A breadth of existing research shows mothers are most likely to report inter-role conflict and exit employment in response to the intense demands of childrearing.³¹

We use role strain theory to understand the experiences of women in local government.

Being a local councillor adds a new role into one’s role set that imposes demands, norms and expectations which may foster role overload and inter-role conflict for women combining local government with motherhood and employment. Past studies on Australian local government found women representatives face a disproportionate burden of family responsibilities compared to male counterparts.³² Conroy found that the non-standard hours required of a local councillor made it especially difficult for women to accommodate political representation without family support.³³

Because the local government representative role is public facing, community oriented and subject to public scrutiny and accountability, we hypothesize it is an intense role that triggers stress, strain and overload. Further, we expect combining the role of councillor with that of mother or caregiver without adequate supports will engender inter-role strain. We expect these consequences to be particularly damaging to young women who are often also enacting the role of ‘good’ worker and mother, meaning they are building careers and families under intense demands. As a consequence of these competing roles, we expect young women to be less likely to put their hand up to run for elected office and to report greater role overload, inter-role conflict, stress and strain when elected.

Existing research lends preliminary evidence to these role strain arguments in elected politics. Research from the UK and Canada suggest that one factor pulling women into local government compared to other tiers is the practicality of the location of local governance which means less travelling time that suggests an easier integration of work and family life.³⁴ However, this assumption is contested.³⁵ Local government can be equally demanding and intensive as other levels of representation. Indeed, an earlier analysis found more women were elected in other Australian parliaments than local government in 2005.³⁶ Other studies focusing on women in local government, find that having supportive partners who share ideological beliefs and, more importantly, general domestic duties, was essential to women’s success.³⁷ Together, these studies indicate that women politicians can balance competing work and family demands when adequately supported, which may structure their trajectories into higher level positions, or without adequate support, role strain may tip them out of politics altogether. Overall, women councillors typically serve less time in their elected role than men, which may be partially explained by their greater role overload associated with balancing work, family and position as councillor.³⁸ Ryan and colleagues’ study of Australian women mayors found men were able to ‘compartmentalise’ their paid employment and domestic responsibilities, whereas women had little separation between the two roles, or overlap, sometimes bringing children to their council meetings when childcare was not available.³⁹

We test these assumptions through analyses of quantitative and qualitative datasets including: those who nominated for local government; those who were successful in the Victorian 2020 elections, and those who considered recontesting in 2020, but ultimately decided against it. Our analysis is guided by three main research questions:

1. Who runs for local government?
2. Who gets elected to council?
3. What obstacles limit equal gender representation?

Method

To answer these questions, we use a mixed methods design. We combine quantitative survey data of men and women candidates and elected councillors, with qualitative interviews with women under 45 who had previously run for office or were politically interested but decided not to run. These unique data sources enabled us to triangulate findings to understand gender differences in the experiences of campaigning and being elected to local government. The interviews provided rich data to study a cohort found to be ‘conspicuously absent’ in the survey data, women under 45. We interviewed 10 women from this age cohort.

Surveys

We used a multi-step approach to collecting and analysing data. First, in September 2020, we conducted a unique survey of local government candidates. Working with the VLGA we sent a survey to the 2,187 candidates on the VEC roll. The survey contained questions about candidates’ motivations for running for council, domestic arrangements, past political experience and affiliations, skills, perceived barriers to overcome to be elected, the goals candidates’ hoped to achieve if elected to council, and demographic questions.⁴⁰ Our survey response rate was 36 per cent with 729 candidates completing the first survey. Comparisons with the VEC database show our sample was broadly representative on key demographics of the candidate population (see Table 1 in Appendix). We had a slight overrepresentation of women in our candidate survey with 44.7 per cent of women respondents compared to the population of 40 per cent of women who nominated for council (as per VEC data). We also had a higher proportion of regional respondents (44 per cent) compared to the VEC data (35 per cent).

Second, following the local government elections in December 2020 we undertook a second survey to capture responses of newly-elected councillors at the beginning of their four-year terms. We asked the same demographic questions and questions about their motivation for running for council and activities of daily life including paid work, childcare and domestic responsibilities. Our survey response rate was 34 per cent with 211 councillors completing the second survey out of a population of 623 elected councillors. Comparisons with the VEC database show our sample was broadly representative of the Victorian local councillor population, but with an overrepresentation of women (51.7 per cent in the sample compared to the 44 per cent elected). We again had a slightly higher proportion of regional respondents in the sample (60 per cent) compared to the councillor population (56 per cent), (see Table 1 in Appendix).

Interviews

Third, after analysing the quantitative data that revealed a missing cohort of women under 45 years of age, we advertised through the VLGA and Facebook group, ‘More Women for Local Government’ to interview adult women 45 and under with an interest or past experience in local government representation. The Facebook group contains 1,200 members who identify as politically interested in local government. We used purposive sampling to achieve a sample with a mix of rural and metro-based women both with and without children. The mean age was 34.4. We undertook 10 interviews between February and March 2021. Due to COVID-restrictions, the semi-structured interviews were undertaken online using Zoom and each interview took approximately one hour.⁴¹ We employed inductive analysis to identify key themes from the interview transcripts using the qualitative analysis software tool, NVivo.

Data and analysis

Who runs for council and who gets elected?

The VEC data reveals that more men (60 per cent) than women (40 per cent) nominated for election to the council. In raw numbers, this was 1,225 men compared to 813 women. However, as Figure 1 shows women candidates had a greater success rate in metropolitan councils (51 per cent of all elected councillors out of 40 per cent of nominated candidates) compared to men (59.5 per cent out of 49 per cent of men nominating), and across Victoria (44.5 per cent⁴² out of 39.9 per cent women nominating) compared to men across Victoria (55.5 per cent out of 60.1 per cent men nominating).

Figure 1: Electability: proportion of male and female candidates nominating for election in metro and regional councils and their success rate:

Numbers are a percentage of candidates and councillors

This finding tells a positive story of women's electability and address our second research question. It shows that despite fewer women nominating for council than men, as a proportion of those who achieve success, women fare better. this positive finding of female electability is consistent with other comparable local government studies, including New Zealand. ⁴³ In Victoria, this finding is stronger than urban municipalities, which provides the first recommendation of this study: State Government and local government sectors should commit greater resources to attracting women to run for council in regional Victoria.

Age and Experience

Although VEC does not collect data on the age of those who run for council, our survey data indicates that running for council is an older person's exercise (Figure 2). The mean age from the candidate's sample was 51.6 (SD= 13.4; range 18-80). There is also an electoral dividend for those with past council experience, which skews towards men. Almost half (49 per cent) of the women aged between 50-64 indicated that this was their first time running for council compared to about a third (38 per cent) of men in the same age bracket. Also, we can see in Figure 2 that proportionally more younger men than women (particularly in the 18-30 age group) nominated for the 2020 elections. In addition, men were much more likely to have run for office at least three times previously compared to women (24 per cent v 14 per cent) and therefore have had more experience campaigning. Overall, more men than women had previous council experience of at least one term (65 per cent compared to 55 per cent).

Thus, to achieve gender parity a second study recommendation is to focus resources on training and encouraging younger women to run for council.

Figure 4: Proportion of councillors/candidates employed full time

Figure 4 shows that there are 46.3 percent of men candidates and 44.9 of men councillors employed full time. There are 27.8 percent of women candidates and 22.5 percent of women councillors employed full time.

Source: Authors, n=729 candidates survey; n= 211 councillors survey.

It appears that in order to accommodate political activity with other competing roles, the option of full-time work for women is often sacrificed to accommodate parenting, housework and council activity. For some women, however, this trade-off may not be an option. We see evidence of financial and/or career insecurity in decisions not to run for council in 2020:

I just didn't consider it feasible that I would be able to maintain my current employment responsibilities plus do the work of council I felt it would have a necessary and direct impact on my ability to earn money on behalf of my family.' (interview 7, 5 March 2021).

This concern about financial pressure and juggling part-time paid employment with council work was repeated in other interviews and decisions not to run for council. For example:

My intent would have been to maintain a part time work arrangement, and then the council position as well. I appreciate that the council position is a good 30 hours of work a week, it's just outside of the usual business sort of hours {Interview 10, 3 March 2021).

In each instance we see evidence of role strain, the 'felt difficulty in fulfilling role obligations', ⁴⁴ both for women with and without children. For example, a 28-year-old in a relationship and building her career, considered running for council in 2020, but did not after considering the impact that taking on council responsibilities might have on her career path:

I think the expectation would have been that I would have dropped down to part time in my current position, and picked up the council position as a part time position. Essentially I would have two part time jobs {Interview 8, 28, 12 March 2021).

For some interviewees, the sacrifice of giving up full-time work to be able to accommodate political activity, plus family responsibilities was considered too high a price to pay after investing time to build a career. For example:

It would be really difficult having done those hard yards to then have to leave the workforce again, and then try and re-enter in however many years’ time. I'm lucky that I have been a long-term employee. .. it would have been difficult because I would not have wanted to give up, essentially, my career that I've worked in for 20 years, for something else.’ (Interview 9, 24 February 2021).

Addressing our third research question, the survey data and interview responses show evidence of role strain as a key obstacle for younger women entering and staying in local politics. Added to this difficulty of reconciling numerous roles with council work was interviewees’ concerns over financial security. Our data shows women more than men are likely to be in part-time jobs, earning less, than male counterparts. Further, Victorian councillor remuneration is low compared to other forms of employment (between $8,833 and $31,444 per year).⁴⁵ Councillor allowances vary depending on the number of constituents in an electorate, with regional councillors in the lowest paid ‘category 1’ remuneration band. A 2008 review of council allowances found ‘allowance levels presented a barrier to candidacy for women, young people and mid-career professionals.’⁴⁶ This 2008 finding of councillor pay as a barrier to female participation is consistent with our study’s findings that also show financial and career security plays a role in prospective candidates’ decision-making to run for council and is a factor in limiting female participation in local government. It might also further explain why female representation is lower in regional councils across Victoria, where councillor allowances are lowest. More broadly, this financial barrier to female participation may help explain why female representation in Australian local government (35%) is below the overall participation of women in Australian parliaments nation-wide (38.6 %), as discussed in the introduction. While role strain and gender inequality exists in other tiers of representation, full-time salaries available to elected representatives at state and federal levels may help mitigate the financial element as a barrier to female participation.

Conclusion

The Victorian Government has set a target of equal gender representation in local government by 2025. Critical to achieving this goal is understanding barriers to women’s entry into, and their experiences within, local government. Here, we apply a role strain perspective based on the assumption that combining the role of councillor with other intense roles like mother or worker would be difficult for women to reconcile. We find strong support for this theoretical perspective with women councillors in our surveys reporting more than twice the housework and caregiving demands as men. Many managed these intense role demands on top of employment. In this regard, we find strong support that women were managing distinct work and family demands alongside council work more so than their men counterparts.

It is perhaps, no surprise that we also identify a ‘missing cohort’ of young women putting their hand up to run for local government. Through our interviews, we show these women anticipate inter-role strain and thus are unwilling to sacrifice their careers and family wellbeing to run for local council. In this regard, role strain impacts women’s local government representation in two ways: (1) Women who are local councillors hold more intense work and family demands and, (2) Women anticipate inter-role strain and thus abstain from putting their hands up or decide not to recontest the elections.

As a consequence, women are more likely to run for local government at later ages, but with less experience than men. These findings have serious implications for both burn-out within local government and a leaky pipeline of women for higher office. Failure to address role strain is a missed opportunity to redress questions of parliament as a gendered workplace whereby achieving gender parity may be a step toward changing entrenched gendered cultures in these novel workplaces.

Despite these barriers, the data indicate that women are more electable in local government suggesting that increasing the pool may increase women’s representation. These patterns are most clearly evident in urban areas with stronger attitudinal support for gender quotas amongst Labor and Greens, thus indicating that greater investment to support women candidates in rural areas is necessary. This provides one clear recommendation for future policy action. Critically, however, our research indicates a need to better support the unique needs of women councillors, especially young women balancing high housework and caregiving demands on top of paid employment. One clear action would be to provide childcare supports for local councillors. This is recently available in Victoria but the subsidies and conditions under which they can be claimed, and what is considered a reasonable expense, vary from council to council.⁴⁷

Some councils’ policies limit claims to formal meetings and exclude less publicly visible council work such as responding to constituents’ emails. A systemic policy would create greater certainty and fairness for all councillors, including men. Yet, as our interview data indicate, some councillors were also reluctant to put children in care which suggests this resource may not be as effective as anticipated. A complementary policy would be to provide flexibility in who can be paid to care for children and to consider including friends and family, which could ease role strain especially outside of formal childcare operating hours.

Further, councillors would benefit from additional resources including higher pay (which the Victorian government is currently considering).⁴⁸ A flexible, capped spending account to outsource housework, is another option to increase female participation across all age levels. These concessions would require a larger public discussion about why women find reconciling work, family and councillor life difficult and the value of women in these spaces at younger ages.

Given that the experiences of women councillors are likely to mirror those of their constituents, a public campaign around these issues is likely to resonate with women constituents and to help normalize the need for childcare subsidies for all councillors with young children so that they are not regarded as a ‘female expense’. This is an area that would benefit from further research. Ultimately, without solving issues around combining work, family and local council representation, women will continue to trail men in their political equality in these spaces. This remains a public issue worthy of deep investment to ensure women’s success within local government. Such success can serve to strengthen women’s pipeline into other political tiers to achieve gender parity and its flow-on effects on parliament as a gendered workplace culture to create a more representative democracy for all.

_{⁷ Inter-Parliamentary Union, ‘Women in Politics: 2019’. Accessed at
https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/infographics/2019-03/women-i….
⁸ Marian Sawer, ‘Dealing with Toxic Parliaments: Lessons from Elsewhere.’ Australasian Parliamentary Review, 36(1) 2021, p. 22.
⁹ Ionica Berevoescu and Julie Ballington, ‘A Global Comparative Study on Women’s Representation in Local Government.’ International Political Science Association, 2020. Accessed at https://www.ipsa.org/wc/paper/global-comparative-study-womens-represent….
¹⁰ Proportional representation electoral systems tend to have higher numbers of women elected compared to other systems.
¹¹ State Government of Victoria, ‘Gender Equality in Local Government’, 2021. Accessed at
https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/our-programs/gender-equity; 5050 Vision, ‘The Case for Women in Local Government’, 2019. Accessed at https://www.5050vision.com.au/case-for-women-in-local-government.html.
¹² Anna Hough, Composition of Australian parliaments by party and gender: a quick guide.’ 2021. Accessed at https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=I…
¹³ Ana Weeks and Lisa Baldez, ‘Quotas and qualifications: the impact of gender quota laws on the qualifications of legislators in the Italian parliament.’ 14 William Goode, ‘A Theory of Role Strain.’ American Sociological Review, 25(4) 1960, pp. 483-496.
¹⁵ Jonathon Woetzel, Ann Madgavkar, et al., ‘How advancing women’s equality can add $12 trillion to global growth.’ McKinsey Global Institute, 2015. Accessed at https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/how-ad….
¹⁶ State Government of Victoria, ‘The benefits of gender equality’. Accessed at https://www.vic.gov.au/benefits-gender-equality
¹⁷ Weeks and Baldez, ‘Quotas and qualifications’, 2015.
¹⁸ Soren Holmberg and Bo Rothstein, Good Government: The Relevance of Political Science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar European Political Science Review, 7(1) 2015, pp.119-144. Publishing, 2021, p.240.
¹⁹ Andrea Carson, Leah Ruppanner, and Jenny Lewis, ‘Race to the top: using experiments to understand gender bias towards female politicians’. Australian Journal of Political Science, 54(4) 2018, pp. 439-455.
²⁰ Matt Martino, ‘Does Labor have twice the number of women the Liberals have in Parliament and on the frontbench?’. ABC News, 20 February 2019. Accessed at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-07/fact-check-does-labor-have-twice….
²¹ Elly Duncan and Julia Baird, ‘Leaked Liberal report shows concerns about women and culture in the party were raised as early as 2015’. ABC News, 8 April 2021. Accessed at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-08/leaked-liberal-party-report-show….
²² Melody Crowder-Meyer and Benjamin Lauderdale, ‘A partisan gap in the supply of female potential candidates in the United States.’ Research & Politics, 1(1) 2014, 2053168014537230.
²³ Mirya Holman, ‘Women in Local Government: What We Know and Where We Go from Here’. State and Local Government Review, 49(4) 2017, pp. 285-296.
²⁴ Iris Young, Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
²⁵ Berevoescu and Ballington, A Global Comparative Study on Women’s Representation in Local Government, p.10.
²⁶ Lyndon Megarrity, ‘Local government and the Commonwealth: an evolving relationship’. Parliament of Australia, 2011. Accessed at https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parli….
²⁷ Victorian State Government, ‘Safe and strong: A Victorian Gender Equality Strategy’. Accessed at
https://www.vic.gov.au/safe-and-strong-victorian-gender-equality.
²⁸ Exceptions include Ruth Henig and Baroness Henig, Women and political power: Europe since 1945. London: Routledge, 2001; Judy McGregor and Karen Webster, ‘Women's local government representation in Auckland-does size matter?’. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, (20) 2017, pp. 1-20; Barbara Pini and Paula McDonald (eds.), Women and representation in local government: International case studies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2011; Anne Stevens, Women, power and politics. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan, 2007; Amanda Sinclair, Margaret Bowman, and Lynne Strahan, Getting the numbers: women in local government. Melbourne: Hargreen, 1987.
²⁹ Laura Poms, Lila Fleming, and Kathryn Jacobsen, ‘Work–Family Conflict, Stress, and Physical and Mental Health: A Model for Understanding Barriers to and Opportunities for Women's Well-Being at Home and in the Workplace’. World Medical & Health Policy, 8(4) 2016, pp. 444-457
³⁰ Maureen Perry-Jenkins, Abbie Goldberg, Courtney Pierce, and Aline Sayer, ‘Shift work, role overload, and the transition to parenthood’. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(1) 2007, pp. 123-138; Janeen Baxter, Sandra Buchler, Francisco Perales, and Mark Western, ‘A life-changing event: First births and men's and women's attitudes to mothering and gender divisions of labor’. Social Forces, 93(3) 2015, pp. 989-1014.
³¹ Shira Offer, ‘The cost of thinking about work and family: mental labor, work-family spillover, and gender inequality among parents in dual-earner families’. Sociological Forum, 29(4) 2014, pp. 916-936.
³² Pini and McDonald, Women and representation in local government.
³³ Denise Conroy, ‘Gendering local government amalgamations’, in Barbara Pini and Paula McDonald (eds), Women and representation in local government: International case studies. Abingdon, Axon: Routledge, 2011, pp. 161–178.
³⁴ Jacqui Briggs, ‘What's in it for women? The motivations, expectations and experiences of female local councillors in Montreal, Canada and Hull, England’. . Local Government Studies, 26(4) 2000, p. 71-84.
³⁵ Barbara Pini and Paula McDonald, ‘A good job for a woman: The myth of local government as family-friendly’. Local Governance, 30(3) 2004, pp. 144–151.
³⁶ Marian Sawer, ‘Presence and the price: women and the 2007 Australian federal election’. Australian Feminist
Studies, 23(56) 2008, pp. 263-269.
³⁷ Briggs, ‘What’s in it for women?’, 2000.
³⁸ Peter Allen, ‘Gendered Candidate Emergence in Britain: Why are More Women Councillors Not Becoming MPs?’. Politics, 33(3) 2013, pp. 147-159.
³⁹ Christine Ryan, Barbara Pini, and Kerry Brown, ‘Beyond stereotypes: An exploratory profile of Australian women mayors’. Local Government Studies, 31(4) 2005, pp. 433-448.
⁴⁰ Demographic questions included age, gender, marital status, number of children under 18 at home, care-giving responsibilities, political leaning, party affiliation, locality, country of birth and cultural and linguistic diversity.
⁴¹ The interview schedule and metadata of participants is available on request.
⁴² The official proportion of female councillors is 43.8 per cent, which is at odds with the 44.5 per cent who succeeded at election. This is because several women have since resigned.
⁴³ McGregor and Webster, 'Women's local government representation in Auckland', p.9
⁴⁴ Goode, A theory of role strain, p. 483.
⁴⁵ Victorian State Government, ‘Proposed Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors - Consultation Paper’, 2021. https://www.vic.gov.au/proposed-determination-allowances-mayors-deputy-…
⁴⁶ Ibid.
⁴⁷ Victorian State Government, ‘Councillor expenses and allowances: equitable treatment and enhanced integrity’, 2020. Accessed at https://www.lgi.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-09/LGI-Councillor-s….
⁴⁸ Victorian State Government, ‘Proposed Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors - Consultation Paper’, 2021. Accessed at https://www.vic.gov.au/proposed-determination-allowances-mayors-deputy-…}

The VLGA is an independent governance organisation supporting councils and councillors
Postal Address: PO Box 4089 Richmond East Vic 3121 | www.vlga.org.au | vlga@vlga.org.au | 03 9349 799

References

5050 Vision. (2019). The Case for Women in Local Government. 5050 Vision: Councils for Gender Equity. Retrieved from https://www.5050vision.com.au/case-for-women-in-local-government.html.

Allen, P. (2013). Gendered Candidate Emergence in Britain: Why are More Women Councillors Not Becoming MPs?. Politics, 33(3), 147-159.

Baxter, J., Buchler, S., Perales, F., & Western, M. (2015). A life-changing event: First births and men's and women's attitudes to mothering and gender divisions of labor. Social Forces, 93(3), 989-1014.

Berevoescu, I. & Ballington, J. (2020). A Global Comparative Study on Women’s Representation in Local Government. International Political Science Association.

Briggs, J. (2000). ‘What's in it for women?’The motivations, expectations and experiences of female local councillors in montreal, Canada and Hull, England. Local Government Studies, 26(4), 71-84.

Carson, A., Ruppanner, L., & Lewis, J. M. (2019). Race to the top: using experiments to understand gender bias towards female politicians. Australian Journal of Political Science, 54(4), 439-455.

Conroy, D. (2011). Gendering local government amalgamations. In Pini, B. & McDonald, P. (eds.)

Women and representation in local government: International case studies (pp. 161–178). Abingdon, Axon: Routledge.

Crowder-Meyer, M., & Lauderdale, B. E. (2014). A partisan gap in the supply of female potential candidates in the United States. Research & Politics, 1(1), 2053168014537230.

Duncan, E. & Baird, J. (2021). Leaked Liberal report shows concerns about women and culture in the party were raised as early as 2015. ABC News. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-08/leaked-liberal-party-report-show…

Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25(4), 483-496. Henig, R. & Henig, S. (2001). Women and political power: Europe since 1945. London: Routledge.

Holman, M. R. (2017). Women in local government: What we know and where we go from here. State and Local Government Review, 49(4), 285-296.

Holmberg, S. & Rothstein, B. (2012). Good government: The relevance of political science. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hough, A. (2021). Women in Leadership: International Women's Day 2021. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/About%20Parliament/Parliamentary%20Departments/P…

Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2019). Women in Politics: 2019. Retrieved from https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/infographics/2019-03/women-i….

Martino, M. (2019). Does Labor have twice the number of women the Liberals have in Parliament and on the frontbench?. ABC News. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-07/fact-check-does-labor-have-twice…

McGregor, J., & Webster, K. (2017). Women's local government representation in Auckland-does size matter?. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, (20), 1-20.

Megaritty, L. (2011). Local government and the Commonwealth: an evolving relationship. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/rp/2010-11/11rp10.pdf.

Offer, S. (2014) The cost of thinking about work and family: mental labor, work-family spillover, and gender inequality among parents in dual-earner families. Sociological Forum, 29(4), 916-936.

Perry-Jenkins, M., Goldberg, A. E., Pierce, C. P., & Sayer, A. G. (2007). Shift work, role overload, and the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(1), 123-138.

Pini, B. & McDonald, P. (2004). A good job for a women: The myth of local government as family-friendly. Local Governance, 30(3), 144–151.

Pini, B. & McDonald, P. (2011) Women and representation in local government: International case studies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Poms, L. W., Fleming, L. C., & Jacobsen, K. H. (2016). Work–Family Conflict, Stress, and Physical and Mental Health: A Model for Understanding Barriers to and Opportunities for Women's Well-Being at Home and in the Workplace. World Medical & Health Policy, 8(4), 444-457.

Ryan, C., Pini, B., & Brown, K. (2005). Beyond stereotypes: An exploratory profile of Australian women mayors. Local Government Studies, 31(4), 433-448.

Sawer, M. (2002). The representation of women in Australia: Meaning and make-believe. Parliamentary Affairs, 55(1), 5–18.

Sawer, M. (2008). Presence and the price: women and the 2007 Australian federal election. Australian Feminist Studies, 23(56), 263-269.

Sawer, M. (2021) ‘Dealing with Toxic Parliaments: Lessons from Elsewhere’. Australasian Parliamentary Review36(1) , p. 22.

Sinclair, A., Strahan, L., & Bowman, M. (1987). Getting the numbers: women in local government. Melbourne, Australia: Hargreen Publishing Co.

Stevens, A. (2007).Women, power and politics. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan. Victorian State Government. (n.d.-a). The benefits of gender equality. Retrieved from https://www.vic.gov.au/benefits-gender-equality.

Victorian State Government. (n.d.-b). Safe and strong: A Victorian Gender Equality Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.vic.gov.au/safe-and-strong-victorian-gender-equality.

Victorian State Government. (2020). Councillor expenses and allowances: equitable treatment and enhanced integrity. Retrieved from https://www.lgi.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-09/LGI-Councillor-s….

Victorian State Government. (2021). Gender Equality in Local Government. Retrieved from https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/our-programs/gender-equity.

Victoria State Government. (2021) Proposed Determination of allowances for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors - Consultation Paper- July 2021. Retrieved from https://www.vic.gov.au/proposed-determination-allowances-mayors-deputy-….

Weeks, A. C., & Baldez, L. (2015). Quotas and qualifications: the impact of gender quota laws on the qualifications of legislators in the Italian parliament. European Political Science Review, 7(1), 119-144.

Woetzel, J., Madgavkar, A., Ellingrud, K., Labaye, E., Devillard, S. & M. Krishnan. (2015). How advancing women’s equality can add $12 trillion to global growth. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/how-ad…

Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Acknowledgements

This research is part of a larger ARC Linkage Project, LP190101189, in partnership with the Victorian Local Governance Association entitled ‘Women in Local Government: Understanding their Political Trajectories’.

The researchers would like to sincerely thank Mr Liam Fallon for his research assistance organising the research interviews.

Appendix

Table 1: Composition of September survey of Victorian local government candidates and December survey of Victorian local government councillors

candidate survey metro men: 229, 56.4 percent
candidate survey metro women: 177, 43.6 percent
candidate survey regional men: 174, 53.9 percent
candidate survey regional women: 149, 46.1 percent

Total candidate survey: 403 men 55.3 percent, 326 women 44.7 percent

councillor survey metro men: 34, 40 percent
councillor survey metro women: 51, 60 percent
councillor survey regional men: 68, 54 percent
councillor survey regional women: 58, 46 percent
Total councillor survey: 102 men 48.3 percent, 109 women 51.7 percent

Victorian Local Government Association

PDF 905.09 KB

(opens in a new window)

Thanks for the chance to make a submission to this.

I'm a resident that lives in the City of Moreland.

I think that, in light of Covid, where so many people have been stood down, made work reduction deals, and businesses just trying to stay alive, it's inappropriate for any increase to salaries and allowances for Councillors, Mayors and Deputy Mayors.

Outside of the scope of this, I believe that Council staff should not be immune to this. Officers continue to make decisions that make life more difficult for residents, with their jobs immune from the decreases in pay that residents are facing. This lack of empathy for real‐world resident struggles then pushes through to their decision making.

I actually support a decrease in the mayoral and deputy salaries – having these two roles as the highly paid roles makes them disproptiationaly coveted, and Councillors clamour and deal‐make 4-year power‐sharing deals.

After Covid, I would support more of a normalisation of the Councillor and Mayoralty salaries, reflecting the work the Councillors must undergo in order to read very long Council agendas, with an ability to scrutinise the work of the Officers and listen to concerns of residents.

For example, I would support (post-Covid) Councillors on 60k, Deputy on 70k, Mayor on 80k.

But right now, in Covid, I cannot support any pay increases.

Thank you,

(redacted)
Moreland Resident

De-identified submission 1

PDF 68.27 KB

(opens in a new window)

Members of the Victorian Remuneration Tribunal,

Thankyou for the opportunity to make a submission. I am firmly of the view that Councillor allowances are grossly inadequate.

Role of Council members

I am a sitting Councillor in one of Victoria’s most populous Councils, (redacted). First elected in (redacted), I represent (redacted) Ward. This is the largest Ward in the municipality, with more than (redacted) residents, a major university, large commercial and industrial precincts, a national growth zone, vast income and wealth disparity, and a highly diverse multicultural population.

On a daily basis I field constituent queries from all over the municipality. We have approx. (redacted) people living in (redacted) and many of them seek out Councillors they feel represent them, even if we aren’t their Ward Councillor. I’ve had people call me after 10pm, on Christmas Day, every weekend – the phone never stops.

I have, at times, sat on as many as 9 council committees and external groups in my role as Councillor. At one stage I was Chair of 3 of these. These bodies are often vital for inter‐Council or inter‐governmental work, for policy development, and for community consultations and strengthening.

Councils have wide‐ranging responsibilities under more than 120 pieces of Victorian legislation. Councillors are required to make decisions which relate to these responsibilities and to a large degree own the risk for making these decisions. That is an extraordinary amount of diverse and complex information to be across for any individual. As a Councillor I have no staff who work directly for me or assist me personally in discharging my role.

I regularly have multiple nights a week dedicated to Council meetings, often running from 5 or 6pm until 10 or 11pm. We receive no loading for night shifts or weekend work and no annual leave loading.

Purpose of allowances

I am not independently wealthy. Therefore, the hours I spend on Council work need to contribute towards my household income so that myself and my family can afford to live. It’s really that simple. Having a substandard allowance makes it difficult for less wealthy people to participate in local democracy, including young people, single parents, pensioners, women, migrants and First Nations people. It also has the potential to have a negative impact on attracting people who earn higher incomes, as many are required to take a very big pay cut to contribute to Council.

A Councillor representing a Category 3 Council could realistically be paid less than $10 per hour for a standard week of Council work at the lower end of the allowance range. Their CEO may be sitting around the same meeting table being paid 20 times as much. Senior staff in the charitable sector are often paid $50‐75 or more per hour. Council allowances do not even remotely compete with other roles people take in order to ‘give back’ to the community, let alone salaries in the corporate or government sectors.

Allowance category factors

Councillors representing larger municipalities necessarily have a higher workload. In my experience it is not the case that having more Councillors means that each individual Councillor works less. Relationships must be built and maintained with more colleagues in a challenging and often competitive environment. Councillors at large Councils will also have more senior staff to liaise with, more constituent contacts from across the municipality, and a more diverse local environment.

The Mayor

In my experience the role of the Mayor has been an ineffective one, and the large disparity between Mayoral allowance and Councillor allowances has been unwarranted. Mayors are not elected based on experience, skill or merit, and the role is largely awarded to members of dominant factions. Were the disparity in allowances less pronounced it may be treated less as a prize and viewed for what it is when performed properly – a complex and challenging role. This may be different at other Councils.

Best regards,

(redacted)

De-identified submission 2

PDF 116.46 KB

(opens in a new window)

Why should a coucil like hume be paid anything, when you ring or go into coucil they get you to do the work

For them.from letter dropping to knocking on peoples doors who are a problem .

De-identified submission 3

PDF 58.53 KB

(opens in a new window)

I wish to proclaim my strong objection to any pay rises for mayors and councillors. This is almost criminal during these very tough times. People have lost faith in institutions.

Regards, (redacted).

De-identified submission 4

PDF 60.22 KB

(opens in a new window)

I understand that the Victorian Remuneration Tribunal is considering a SIGNIFICANT pay rise for all Mayors, Deputy-Mayors and Councillors in Victoria.

In light of the present COVID-19 situation wrecking havoc with many employers and employees, I would ask you to critically appraise any pay rise for Mayors, Deputy-Mayors and Councillors.

Our communities is suffering economic hardships caused by COVID lockdowns. Please do not invite taxpayer frustration by creating an even more unequal society.

Being a member of a Council should be viewed as an honorary position, not an opportunity to "feather one's nest".

Sincerely,

(redacted)

De-identified submission 5

PDF 45.62 KB

(opens in a new window)

Dear Tribunal Members

Re: councillor allowances

Being a councillor is a 7‐day job, where usually up to 3 hours per day is spent handling ratepayer enquiries and general ward advocacy, with the exclusion of public and social events, social media and meetings.

I suggest that the role, despite not having fixed hours, factoring in the latter is comparable to a full‐time position, however an allowance is awarded reflecting a part‐time role.

Further a councillor, does not have office staff that would assist with meeting growing ratepayer engagement and awareness, so therefore is left to manage a high‐volume of tasks in this absence on their own.

No consideration is made within the current allowance for vehicle maintenance, servicing and insurance, despite a vehicle being an essential part of the role, nor does the role provide any allowance for marketing expenditure.

For reason of the above, the existing part‐time allowance must be updated to reflect a full‐time role with consideration of vehicular and marketing expenses.

Thank you

(redacted)

De-identified submission 6

PDF 104.98 KB

(opens in a new window)

To whom it may concern

Please find following a submission received in response to Wellington Shire Council's finalised review of mayoral and councillors allowances, made under the current determination by the Minister for Local Government.

Wellington Shire Council are lodging the following submission on behalf of (redacted), to be included in the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal's consideration of submissions in preparation for its first determination later this year.

Date received: 17 June 2021

Correspondent: (redacted)

Submission: I would like to see Councillor allowances raised substantially, in the order of 100 to 200%. My rationale is that currently the small remuneration effectively reduces the pool of potential representatives to self-funded retirees. For all other cohorts it is not near enough to act as a reasonable wage that could adequately supplement any other income. Given the role of councillors is very time consuming, combined with the small wage, this effectively makes it impossible for young people, parents, working singles and couples, etc to put their hand up for a Councillor role. Hence, it becomes impossible to get a diverse representation of views and opinions on Council.

If you require any further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Regards

(redacted)

De-identified submission 7

PDF 39.75 KB

(opens in a new window)

We do NOT want increases in councillor and mayor allowances!

To have services reduced and our rates increased by over $500(!) during this time of reduced work and financial hardship, not to mention stress, I find it appalling and extremely distasteful that a pay increase for council members is even considered. You are not exactly showing that we are in this together and that you are ‘working for us’.

This council is failing it’s community. Wake up and see how unhappy and disgruntled your community members are.

Try bringing back weekly recycling, this will help our streets look less like a ghetto. We have taken our glass bin out once so far since it was introduced. Plus the 6.15am glass collection is ridiculous.

Listen to your community and maybe choose to help them rather than raid them.

Regards,

(redacted)

De-identified submission 8

PDF 66.29 KB

(opens in a new window)

I cannot understand in this current climate why local councils are petitioning for a pay rise. In our council which is Yarra Ranges we receive no services, no infrastructure, no support in any capacity I strongly object to any pay rise for any councillor at this point in time. Everyone is accountable however there is no accountability with council or council employees I would vote for no local councils and have them run by the state government we do not need three tier regulation it is a farce Yours sincerely (redacted)

De-identified submission 9

PDF 61.35 KB

(opens in a new window)

I wish to state, as a City of Yarra ratepayer, my opposition and objection to pay rises in the current Covid‐19 ravaged recession that is seeing many shops, businesses and employees either lose income or have it dramatically downgraded.

Perspective and leading by example is needed at this critical time in a pandemic that will have flow on effects for decades to come. The optics of awarding pay rises to people who are already well remunerated with a degree of job security would be poorly received by the community.

Regards
(redacted)

De-identified submission 10

PDF 62.44 KB

(opens in a new window)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Recently the Glen Eira council tried to implement a change to the pick up of bins. Needless to say it was a disaster. Information that was meant to be sent out, wasn’t, misinformation about bin collection caused bins to be not collected. This is only one reason why they do not deserver a pay rise. Other reasons are as follows,

1. Covid. So many have lost jobs are suffering and yet our self serving entitled councillors are asking for money during a time of Pandemic?
2. Where will this pay rise come from? They have already raised our rates beyond what the banks have evaluated our property at.
3. The local pool has sat there empty for 2 years now with a massive leak. They have done nothing about it.

It's time to pay these people based on productivity.

I implore you, DO NOT GIVE THEM A PAY RISE.

Regards

(redacted)

De-identified submission 11

PDF 67.32 KB

(opens in a new window)