For years, developers and political parties have pushed for more planning matters to be decided by the state government in the guise of 'lessening red tape' and providing housing - a move which would bypass local democracy to streamline planning processes for developments at the expense of local councillors and local objectors.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Recently the state government altered our council wards. In future Ballarat will have nine wards each with only one councillor representing residents instead of three councillors in each of three wards. This will reduce residents' access to councillors.
Followers of conspiracy theories often claim local governments are illegitimate as they are not mentioned in the Australian constitution and that it is illegal for them to levy rates or other charges. Another spurious allegation is that the '15 minute city' concept is a plot to divide up cities and restrict people's movement using digital surveillance. Such groups often use documents imported from the USA to 'prove' their misguided notions.
Now, presumably on the assumption that our councillors are incapable of making their own decisions, some councils are voluntarily limiting their own actions by bringing in formal policies to prevent various issues from even being raised at council meetings.
Last month the City of Ballarat council voted to consider such a policy based upon a very restrictive version recently adopted by Mount Alexander Shire. This will come up for a decision at council's April meeting.
A notice of motion from Cr Ben Taylor referred to 'matters outside of the jurisdiction of council [which] include referendums at federal level, international matters over which council has no legislated authority or responsibility, lacking a clear connection to City of Ballarat's ratepayers and residents and therefore, to have relatively low direct impact on them. These matters include but are not limited to: war and conflicts; international treaties; recognition of countries as legitimate states; global climate and energy accords and other similar documents'.
But is a policy preventing council considering such matters really necessary? Are claims that they take up too much time actually justified?
The minutes of meetings since the current council was elected in late 2020 show only three items which might have been covered by the type of policy proposed by Cr Taylor.
In August 2021, council voted unanimously to support our Afghani and Hazara community and write to the federal government advocating increased support for the Afghan community in Australia and expansion of humanitarian response to affected people.
In September 2021, a motion supporting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was lost.
In February 2024, following representations from members of the public about the ongoing conflict in Gaza, council supported a resolution noting that Ballarat is a diverse, multi-cultural, and multi-faith community. The motion authorised the mayor to write to the federal government urging the Australian government to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, unconditional release of all hostages, and an end to the siege in Gaza to allow unfettered access to humanitarian aid.
Discussing three such motions in the space of four years would hardly seem an excessively large amount of council's time. The cost to council of drafting a few letters would also seem to be minimal.
In fact the suggested policy is far too broad and may inadvertently cover many issues which are currently supported by council. It says for example that "council will not establish a formal position or undertake advocacy on a specific matter that is ... International in nature and over which council has no legislated authority or responsibility".
This clause would appear to prevent council from continuing to support the Ballarat Friends of Ainaro, through which council has previously donated $5000 to assist with emergency relief support after a cyclone, and $7500 towards a playground in Ainaro, East Timor. Clearly these are international matters for which council 'has no legislated responsibility.'
It may also restrict Ballarat's Sister City Agreement with the Town of Inagawa, Japan and other international links which we have - the Intercultural Cities Program; the Global Charter for Compassion; the Welcoming Cities Network; and as a UNESCO Creative City.
Many state and federal government decisions are outside council's legislated authority and responsibility but can have serious ramifications for particular people in Ballarat. Will council be prevented from even expressing support for the interests of residents?
The adoption of such a restrictive policy is not only unnecessary but potentially unworkable and would limit council's ability to decide all matters on their merits. I foresee long drawn-out debates in future councils - not on the actual issues - but merely whether they are covered by the policy and therefore unacceptable for council to debate.
The current council term ends in October. It is clearly inappropriate, so late in the term, for this council to place limits on the possible actions of those councillors who will be elected for the next four years and in the future.
- Stuart Kelly, Ballarat Central
Correction and apology: An earlier version of this opinion article should not have referred to the group Council Watch. The references were incorrect. Council Watch has advised, and the article's writer and The Courier accept, that Council Watch is not connected to the Angry Victorians Party and its leaders do not oppose supporting LGBTQIA+ persons or oppose action towards reconciliation or carbon neutrality. As stated on Council Watch's website, the volunteer group seeks "to advocate on behalf of all residents and ratepayers in Victoria". The Courier apologises to Council Watch for the error and any harm and embarrassment caused.
