top of page

LOW IMPACT: HIGH COST - Multi-Council Boards, Peak Bodies, and Alliances

Writer's picture: Dean HurlstonDean Hurlston

Local councils across Victoria (and in every state) collectively contribute tens of millions of dollars each year to a range of multi-council alliances, peak bodies, and advocacy groups. These organisations, which claim to provide strategic advocacy, policy leadership, and intergovernmental influence, frequently deliver little more than reports, strategy documents, and networking events. Despite their existence, councils continue to struggle with core issues such as inadequate state and federal funding, rate capping, service delivery pressures, and cost-shifting from higher levels of government.

At a time when Councils are taking record levels of rates, junkets, conferences and "perks", all why crying poor, one solution is obvious - CUT THE WASTE AND CUT THE CRAP.

How about ending these countless and useless committees?


1. Municipal Peak Bodies: Overlap and Ineffectiveness

Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV)

  • MAV presents itself as the leading advocacy group for councils, yet its effectiveness in securing real funding or legislative changes has been minimal.

  • Key issues like rate capping, infrastructure deficits, and cost-shifting remain unresolved despite MAV’s long-standing lobbying efforts - government does not listen to the MAV.

  • The organisation consumes substantial membership fees but provides little direct return to councils, many of which have opted to conduct their own advocacy.

Local Government Professionals Victoria (LGPro)

  • LGPro claims to improve local government capacity through professional development and training.

  • Many of its training programs duplicate existing resources or external consultancy services that councils already engage.

  • The impact of these programs remains unmeasured, and council staff continue to face increasing bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA)

  • The VLGA is supposed to improve governance and leadership but has done little to prevent dysfunction within councils.

  • With MAV already providing advocacy, VLGA’s role appears redundant, leading to an unnecessary duplication of resources.

  • Many councils question whether their membership fees would be better spent on direct governance improvements rather than supporting another layer of bureaucracy.

  • Councils have record levels of governance and dysfunction so what is VLGA actually doing?

Australian Local Government Association (ALGA)

  • ALGA, the national body for local governments, has had little success in influencing federal funding models.

  • Despite years of reports and policy statements, councils remain financially constrained, still dependent on unpredictable federal grants.

  • ALGA has little to no impact on the federal government.

2. Regional and Metropolitan Advocacy Groups: Reports Without Action

M9 - representing the inner 9 Melbourne Councils

  • M9 is a coalition of inner Melbourne councils advocating for shared outcomes.

  • However, M9 has achieved almost nothing since inception.

  • The group primarily produces policy papers and hosts meetings, with little evidence of direct influence on government decision-making

Greater South East Melbourne (GSEM)

  • GSEM is a coalition of councils advocating for infrastructure investment in Melbourne’s southeast.

  • However, major projects in the region are driven by state and federal governments, not council alliances.

  • The group primarily produces policy papers and hosts meetings, with little evidence of direct influence on government decision-making.

Metropolitan Transport Forum

  • The forum has repeatedly called for improved transport solutions, yet state transport policies and budgets remain unaffected.

  • With key transport decisions controlled at the state level, the forum serves more as a discussion platform than an actual influencer of policy.

Western Melbourne Tourism

  • Despite ongoing funding, there has been no measurable increase in tourism investment directly linked to this group’s advocacy.

  • Individual councils and private enterprises continue to drive tourism development more effectively.

Metropolitan Local Government Waste Forum

  • Waste management remains a state-controlled issue, with councils struggling under rigid state policies and landfill levies.

  • The forum produces numerous strategy documents but has not driven tangible improvements in waste management efficiency or cost reductions.

Melbourne Regional Landfill Community Reference Group

  • The group discusses landfill concerns, yet key waste management decisions remain in the hands of state government and private operators.

  • There is little evidence that the reference group has significantly influenced landfill policies or practices.

3. Climate Alliances: Reports Instead of Results

Victoria has multiple regional climate alliances that claim to coordinate action on climate change, yet their actual impact is negligible. These groups focus on policy statements, strategic plans, and advocacy but have had no measurable effect on state or federal climate policies.

Barwon South-West Climate Alliance (BSWCA)

  • Produces climate action strategies that often mirror state policies, adding no unique influence.

  • No direct evidence of increased funding or local climate initiatives beyond standard council programs.

Central Victorian Greenhouse Alliance (CVGA)

  • Focuses on renewable energy advocacy but has not driven significant investment into its member councils.

  • Strategy documents lack implementation mechanisms, leaving councils reliant on their own initiatives.

Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (EAGA)

  • Aims to advocate for climate action funding but has failed to shift state government priorities.

  • Councils continue to struggle with climate adaptation funding despite years of EAGA lobbying.

Goulburn Murray Climate Alliance (GMCA)

  • Engages in knowledge-sharing rather than action.

  • Has not secured major policy changes or funding boosts for regional councils.

Gippsland Alliance for Climate Action (GACA)

  • Focuses on advocacy rather than implementation.

  • Climate adaptation efforts remain fragmented, with little direct impact from the alliance’s work.

Northern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (NAGA)

  • Regularly produces research reports and climate risk assessments.

  • There is little evidence that state or federal policy has been altered based on NAGA’s findings.

South East Councils Climate Change Alliance (SECCCA)

  • Organises forums and publishes reports but has limited tangible outcomes.

  • Climate adaptation funding remains largely unchanged despite SECCCA’s lobbying.

Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action (WAGA)

  • Another advocacy group with overlapping objectives, leading to duplication.

  • Funding for council-led climate initiatives remains low, with no direct policy influence from WAGA.

Conclusion: Millions Spent for Little Impact

Across all these multi-council groups and alliances, there is a clear pattern of inefficiency:

  • Excessive administrative costs – A large proportion of funding is spent on governance, salaries, and operations rather than direct outcomes.

  • Overlapping functions – Many of these groups duplicate the efforts of other advocacy bodies, creating bureaucratic redundancy.

  • No direct influence on state and federal policies – Major decisions on transport, climate, waste, and economic development continue to be dictated by higher levels of government.

  • A culture of report-writing instead of implementation – Despite the production of numerous strategy documents, real-world change is minimal.


Given the millions in ratepayer dollars spent annually on these bodies, councils must reconsider whether membership in these organisations provides any real return on investment. Direct engagement with state and federal governments, rather than outsourcing advocacy to ineffective bodies, may prove to be a more cost-effective and impactful approach. The feedback from most Mayors is that the State and Federal Government barely respond and generally do not listen to them anyway. Assuming this level of contempt from higher levels of government and the reality that nothing meaningful has come from any of these multi-council alliances, peak bodies, and advocacy groups for years - is it time to DEFUND THEM ALL?



If you like this content and want to help more of it being created, head here:

1,824 views22 comments

Recent Posts

See All

22件のコメント

5つ星のうち0と評価されています。
まだ評価がありません

評価を追加
ゲスト
2月02日
5つ星のうち5と評価されています。

We have also a secret sneaky Council out here in the west, not a single answer from them when they are questioned, not a one.

いいね!

Local
2月02日

About time these leaches were exposed and removed

いいね!

ゲスト
2月01日

At last someone on their tail.

いいね!

ゲスト
2月01日
5つ星のうち5と評価されています。

It’s long overdue!

いいね!

Col Done
2月01日
5つ星のうち1と評価されています。

Hello

Despite numerous emails requesting assistance with a suspect or dodgy dealing with Brimbank council and further emails direct to Councilwatch Officers over a 3-4mth period, I have not had a single reply from Councilwatch. This is disappointing and reflects poorly on their ability to advocate for residents or offer them suitable advice. Councilwatch may want to look inside itself before offering critique of Advisory Bodies to councils.

いいね!
Dean Hurlston
Dean Hurlston
2月02日
返信先

that is imply untrue Col Done. Your comment and email to us yesterday (which we replied to) are untrue. We do not have a bunch of emails from you at all. Nice try

いいね!
General Enquiries:
please send ALL enquiries to info@councilwatch.com.au 

 
Media Enquiries ONLY: 
Dean Hurlston
President
0427 862 103 (please text)
General Enquiries will be answered as soon as possible
Email: info@councilwatch.com.au 

2023 Council Watch Inc
A0040924M
Registered since 2001. 
bottom of page