Sending a message to Macquarie Street

Contrary to popular belief voters at the New South Wales local government elections last Saturday did not take out their frustrations on Labor candidates but they demonstrated their strong disapproval of more disturbing state actions.

In all but a handful of Sydney city electorates early counting showed voters delineated between local and state matters and voted for the candidates they believed would best represent them.

There were a few inconsistencies, some Liberal and National party candidates branding themselves Independent; Labor party candidates not branding themselves at all; and Independents doing preference deals then backing out at the death.

An increase in informal and “donkey” votes demonstrated an irritation with the changes to the voting process this election.

But the biggest message was delivered from two urban Sydney electorates coming back into the competition after four years on the “bench”.

Two more different electorates are unimaginable, however industrial working-class Liverpool and upper-class beachfront Warringah returned candidates who were sacked four years ago amid allegations of mismanagement and corruption. Voters in Liverpool and Warringah stuck it to the state government big time with the message that sacking an elected council is not on.

The state government has sacked more councils in the past few years than Nathan Rees has sacked ministers in his first week as premier, an unenviable record.

Since 2004 68 councils have been investigated: almost 45 per cent of active democratically elected representative local government ranging across the state and including large urbans - Hornsby, Campbelltown, Manly, Marrickville and Rockdale, through smaller regionals, Jerilderie, Narromine, Harden and Boorowa.

This resulted in ten public inquiries into Liverpool, Warringah, Rylstone, Tweed, Walgett, Brewarrina, Broken Hill, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Brewarrina, and Shell Harbour.

After the public inquires it sacked Tweed, Broken Hill, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Shell Harbour and Wollongong.

Wollongong was dismissed as a result of an ICAC inquiry, while the others were the result of public inquiries performed under Section 740 of the Local Government Act.

So what does it take for a council to get sacked? How much mischief does it need to get up to before the axe falls and why have citizens in Liverpool and Warringah revealed their resentment of the process?

According to the department of local government, when serious breakdowns occur in council operations, the Local Government Act of 1993 provides two significant intervention mechanisms - section 430 investigations and section 740 public inquiries.

Under section 430, the “director general” has the power to carry out investigations into council operations. Under section 740, the “minister” has the power to appoint a commissioner to conduct a public inquiry into a council.

At any time, and within what appear to be flexible guidelines, the minister can order a section 740 inquiry. When the inquiry process is complete the minister can sack the council and appoint an administrator.

The administrator effectively transforms into the elected representatives: the mayor and the councillors all rolled into one, rather than sending a council in question back to the polls.

She then makes decisions about the running of the council and puts forward the views of the electorate.

On face value, administrators appear to be more bureaucratic than the bureaucrats, although this image may disguise the real issues. Of vital importance to the process of democracy, is the fact that an administrator controls public council meetings and watches what the general manager and council officers are doing.

Maladministration and poor financial governance appear to be the leading reasons for igniting council inquiries. However, councils can be “selected” for review by the state government at any time within a very flexible framework.

In the case of Port Macquarie-Hastings, the seventh council sacked in five years, the evidence against it related to its handling of a cultural and entertainment centre in which its budgeted development went from $7 million to $41 million.

In the case of Shell Harbour, its sacking was based on its failure to take seriously its own code of conduct committee. All councils have such a committee to address complaints against councillors. The public inquiry heard the committee had not met for some time since 2007, leading to a big list of complaints.

A review involves a “team” evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of aspects of council operations. It includes assessing a council’s overall strategic direction, checking compliance, examining appropriate practices and ensuring the council can monitor its own performance.

Councils complete a self-assessment of their strategic management and operating practices, then the “review team” does what the department calls a “reality check” as part of its site review. An “at-risk” council has four weeks to respond to the self-assessment.

In the Tweed case the inquiry found council was improperly influenced by developers involved in a coastal property boom. The investigation, headed by commissioner Maurice Daly, was ignited after “community concern” emerged about the way planning decisions were made.

The report focused on the way most Tweed Shire councillors were elected, finding that they were “puppets” of a developer-controlled group known as Tweed Directions.

The department claims its most important job is to ensure that councils are efficient and sustainable and that they deliver quality services to their communities. But if we think about the democratic nature of councils and the election process, then they should not need watching.

Various calls for the process to be reviewed were made public after Broken Hill was sacked last year for “bad behaviour”.

Then opposition local government spokesman John Turner said it is outrageous to remove local representation for that long and that six months should be enough before new elections were held.

Genia McCaffery from the Local Government Association made the same statement and added the state government should have acted against “individual councillors” rather than sacking the entire council, an option available in Victoria

Broken Hill's federal MP, John Cobb, said he was angry at the three-year appointment of an administrator and that the town of 20,000 had lost its democratic rights.

If Liverpool and Warringah are indicators, then Broken Hill and the other councils coming off the bench in 2012 can look forward to voters sending another strong message to Macquarie Street, unless the process changes before then.