📉 Disconnect and Discontent: When the Local Government Act Undermines What Ratepayers Really Want
- Dean Hurlston
- Apr 18
- 3 min read
By Council Watch
The recently released Municipal Monitor’s Report on Colac Otway Shire Council is intended to be a roadmap to better governance. But read closely, and the 70+ page report reveals something more troubling: a growing chasm between the expectations of Victoria’s Local Government Act (2020) and what the community actually wants from its elected representatives.
The report – while professionally crafted – repeatedly pushes for strict compliance with a narrow, bureaucratic definition of governance. But in doing so, it quietly dismisses the very thing that democracy is built on: the will of the people.
📣 The People Want Representation. The Act Demands Compliance.
Time and again, the Monitor scolds Colac Otway’s former councillors for doing exactly what their communities elected them to do – advocate for local needs.
“When interviewed, all seven Councillors (2020–2024) described their primary function as being to ‘meet community expectations’... This response involved reaching into operational matters to resolve the matter to the community member’s satisfaction.”
In the eyes of ratepayers, this is democracy in action: elected representatives championing real-world issues. But to the Monitor and the Local Government Act, it's “a failure of good governance.”
The report goes so far as to say councillors should not respond directly to complaints or requests – instead, directing residents through bureaucratic customer service portals.
📑 Strategic Governance vs. Local Outcomes
Under the Local Government Act, councillors are expected to be lofty strategists – authors of ten-year plans, budget visions and policy frameworks. But in reality, the average ratepayer wants something more grounded: working drains, maintained roads, community safety, and responsive leadership.
Yet the Monitor criticises councillors for questioning technical reports, seeking answers on capital works, or attempting to resolve local issues:
“Lengthy questioning and debating of specific technical details achieved little except to unnecessarily delay decisions… and undermine public confidence.”
If engaging in the detail of a controversial or costly decision is now considered bad governance, what exactly is left of local accountability?
⚖️ Silencing the People’s Voice
Perhaps the most worrying theme is how the Monitor frames community input. Councillors are repeatedly warned not to respond to pressure from “specific cohorts” or “interest groups” — even when these groups represent large sections of the voting public.
“Some Councillors appeared to prioritise the interests of part of the community… This behaviour is inconsistent with the requirements of the Local Government Act.”
In other words, unless a councillor is advocating for everyone equally (a philosophical impossibility), their behaviour is deemed inappropriate.
🛑 Councillors as the Enemy of Their Own Organisation?
The report reveals a culture where councillors who challenge executives or scrutinise operations are viewed as disruptive. Councillors are warned not to:
Critique the CEO
Engage staff directly
Revisit past decisions
Advocate too strongly for community events (e.g. Lake Colac safety concerns)
Appear publicly without mayoral permission
Yet these are the very actions the public associates with active, visible and accountable councillors. This approach suggests a local government system more interested in protecting bureaucracy than delivering for ratepayers.
👥 What the Public Really Wants
Victorians aren't asking their councillors to be corporate strategists. They want elected members who:
Answer the phone
Take up local issues
Challenge poor service
Question costs
Fix broken things
But instead, the Local Government Act, and now the monitors who enforce it, are pushing councils to behave more like detached boards of directors – inaccessible, procedural, and answerable only to their own framework.
🔍 A System at Odds with Itself
This report isn’t just about Colac Otway. It’s a warning sign that Victoria’s local government system has drifted too far from its grassroots purpose. When councillors are punished for being too connected to the community, we’ve lost sight of why we elect them in the first place.
Until governance reform aligns again with public expectations, distrust in councils – and in the State’s intervention mechanisms – will only deepen.
It’s time we stopped asking councillors to serve the Act and started letting them serve the people.