Council Watch Victoria claims to represent ratepayers – but are its views shared by most Australians?
Independent research[i] reveals that “Australians increasingly have an appetite for local government to address contentious cultural and political issues”.
However, Council Watch argue otherwise based on biased surveys, and encourage angry comments on their Facebook page about issues such as flying inclusive flags, Welcome to Country and changing the date of Australia Day.
[i] Rachel Busbridge, Mark Chou & Serrin Rutledge-Prior (2024) The Three Rs and Beyond: Public Perceptions on the Role of Australian Local Government Today, Urban Policy and Research, 42:2, 204-216, DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2024.2320637
What does the research say?
A research report by academics at the Australian Catholic University (ACU) found the following:
“Australians increasingly have an appetite for local government to address contentious cultural and political issues. Although our survey revealed that Australians rated the provision of supervised injecting rooms, LGBTQIA+ support and advocacy, refugee support and reconciliation and Indigenous issues as the least important services and activities for local government to engage in, clear majorities answered positively when asked to what extent local government should be engaging in contentious issues to do with climate change, Australia Day and LGBTQIA+ support and advocacy. The only exception was on the specific question of local government changing the date of Australia Day, which was evenly split..”[i]
In this ACU survey, which asked for views on the level of importance of services for local government to provide, 61% said climate change was extremely or very important and only 10% said it wasn’t important. 52% said that indigenous and reconciliation issues were extremely or very important and only 10% said it wasn’t important.
[i] Ibid, p213
Council Watch’s surveys are unreliable
Council watch claim their aim is to “hold local government to account” but many of the positions they hold are based on their own surveys that appear designed to misrepresent the public’s views.
In one survey report, 18 services were listed and participants asked “What do you consider the essential “CORE” services Council should provide at a MINIMUM.” They were instructed to “please pick only the items you think are absolutely essential”. (emphasis in original) [i]
It’s little surprise that with an emphasis on “minimum” and “absolutely essential”, even libraries receive only 58% support, parks and gardens only 72% and maternal health services 14%! Council Watch’s conclusion was “people who responded to the survey are not focused on climate change, equality, indigenous issues, and LGBTQIA+ issues (as a priority within Councils and their role)”. Their media release claimed “Victorians have spoken. They want Councils to focus on the core services more than ever, and end the distraction of minor issues”.
In another Council Watch report, the survey results were similarly misleading due to the question wording.[ii] The report provides survey answers to the question “What do you want your council to spend money on in this year’s budget?”. However, a review of the survey question shows a list of 31 activities but limits respondents to choose only 10. It’s no surprise that Climate Change scored only 8%, but given the wording of the question, this can’t be interpreted to mean that people don’t think this is important.
This misleading result is used to strengthen their argument in their article criticising councils’ approach to climate change issues. Council Watch says that only 8% of respondents want councils to spend funds on climate change, and “That’s 92% who don’t want Councils spending on [climate change]”. March 24, 2024.
[i] Council Watch, Perceptions of Local Government, Jan 2024 https://www.councilwatch.com.au/_files/ugd/d1d8f9_aa8c3410f1a84b96ad44db3c1021cf36.pdf
[ii] Council Watch, Council Budget Spending – Consumer Priorities, Feb 2024 https://www.councilwatch.com.au/_files/ugd/d1d8f9_1505777cef5f4546a26054400446daec.pdf
Australia Day, Equity and Diversity and Indigenous issues
Council Watch claims that “Councillors now regularly push ideology like climate change, sexual identity, gender affirmation, trans activism, free bleeding, sex workshops, welcome-to-country ceremonies, healing ceremonies, moving Australia Day, Nuclear disarmament, giving trees legal rights…” (Dean Hurlston, Council Watch website, Oct 2022).
Despite the independent research findings, keeping councils away from these broader social issues appears to be a priority for Council Watch. Despite some unsavoury comments on Council Watch’s FB page, Council Watch’s posts appear worded in a way that ‘fires up’ angry responses. There is no evidence that those commenting on the page are Council Watch members, but Council Watch’s posts appear designed to encourage their engagement.
“The Voice is back” Council Watch says as it posts an article about Melbourne City Council appointing a committee to advise on “strategies, policies and plans that may affect First Nations people”. Of 37 people who commented, 32 were negative about the appointment of such a committee, with some comments arguably racist. Apart from my comment querying whether Council Watch reflected the public view, there were only 4 people commenting in support of the committee.
“Should Welcome to Countries be ditched in Vic councils?” Council Watch asked “Please share this with everyone you know, we want their vote” they urged. (August 13 2024). The vote result (118 in the affirmative and 2 negative) gives some picture of who they engage with on their page.
Council Watch’s complaint to Mornington Peninsula Shire about “no aussie flag” received many strong comments supporting the Australian flag– even though this issue related to the Shire’s use of First Nations and ‘inclusive’ flags in a “Positive Ageing” booklet.
Council Watch’s petition for its “Hands off Australia Day” campaign included a call for the Australian flag to be included in all council publications, and for no other flag to be flown on council poles apart from the Australian flag without a public resolution by councils.
In a recent post, Council Watch refer to a proposal to change the names of three parks to indigenous names as “a lefty brain fart” and to the counsellor making the proposal as a “Bleedy heart lefty-lawyer with your money in tow!”
Conclusion
I don’t doubt that there is a need for a body – or bodies – that can help improve the transparency and effectiveness of local government. However, such a body would need to be honest about its own agenda. Council Watch isn’t.
Author’s note: I have worked in community services and consumer advocacy. I have never been involved in local council and do not personally know any councillors.
The Naysayer 