Wednesday, 3 May 2023

Committees

Economy and Infrastructure Committee

Reference

Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (15:07): I move:

That this house requires the Economy and Infrastructure Committee to inquire into, consider and report, by 30 June 2024, on local government funding and service delivery in Victoria, including but not limited to:

(1) the effects of cost shifting from the state and federal governments to local councils in an examination of vertical and horizontal fiscal imbalances;

(2) the services local councils should, and should not, be delivering for their communities;

(3) whether local councils are adequately delivering on their core service delivery objectives;

(4) the overall revenue structure of local government;

(5) whether the existing revenue structure is sustainable and appropriate or if alternative models of funding would be more sustainable and appropriate;

(6) the accountability of local councils in the use of revenue to deliver core services; and

(7) any other related matters.

I am happy to move this motion on behalf of Ms Crozier. I guess I come to this debate as someone who has served as a local government councillor. I know there are others in here like Ms Mansfield and you, Acting President McArthur, and Ms Deeming as well, who have served as local government councillors. I served for six years, and I have served as a mayor and a deputy mayor in the past as well. This motion is really about going back to the drawing board and looking at what local government does and how services are best delivered to maximise value for those that are paying for them – the ratepayer. I will try and work through each of the points of this motion as they sit in a logical way, and we will go from there.

The first part of this motion talks about cost shifting. I guess ‘cost shifting’ is defined as when Commonwealth or state governments transfer programs or service responsibilities to local governments with insufficient funding or provide grants that do not keep pace with the actual delivery costs incurred by councils. This is not a new occurrence by anyone’s standards; it is something that has sort of crept in over time. I do not downplay the importance of the services that I am about to talk about; my comments are more about who should be responsible for providing these services.

The sector commonly talks about services such as school crossing supervision – you could argue that that could be run by the Department of Education; maternal and child health – the Department of Health; early years infrastructure – again the Department of Education; building reform, planning – obviously a state department of planning; housing, particularly social housing – the department of housing; infrastructure, urban stormwater, environmental protections and flood overlays, road network projects – again we have got a department of roads and major projects; disaster response and recovery – we have got a state department of emergency management; aged and older persons care – again we have got state departments to deal with that; and even the management of ports, which in my experience local governments have managed as well. In my particular experience it was the Port of Apollo Bay that the local council was responsible for managing on behalf of the state.

Here is a good example of cost shifting over time. In 1975, public libraries, which I bet everyone has a very keen interest in, were funded 50-50 by state and local government. Victorian government funding has since declined to just 17 per cent, with local government having to make up 83 per cent, which is equal to about $73 million. Local government has to find that annually to cover the state funding shortfall. That is quite a significant shift in the cost allocation. Peak industry groups such as the VLGA, the Victorian Local Government Association; the MAV, the Municipal Association of Victoria; and the Australian Local Government Association, the ALGA, have all been on the record as saying that cost shifting is an extremely significant issue that needs to at least be thought about and considered. We have got to remember that this motion is about an inquiry. It is not a predetermined outcome, and all these issues should be considered. Cost shifting is one of them.

I know that probably one of the more contentious matters that is outlined in this motion is the second matter, which is regarding the services that councils should and should not be delivering for their communities. This is not about cutting any service whatsoever. It is just about who is best placed to deliver it. And the place that we should really look to figure out who runs what in local government is obviously the Local Government Act 2020 itself. So according to section 8 of the Local Government Act, what is the role of a council? Section 8(1) says:

The role of a Council is to provide good governance in its municipal district for the benefit and wellbeing of the municipal community.

It goes on to talk about what is good governance and that sort of thing. But that is basically the direction that is given to the sector about what local government is responsible for.

It probably would not be a bad thing to look at what the role of a councillor is in this, as an elected representative. Under section 28 of the Local Government Act it says:

The role of every Councillor is –

(a) to participate in the decision making of the Council; and

(b) to represent the interests of the municipal community in that decision making; and

(c) to contribute to the strategic direction of the Council through the development and review of key strategic documents of the Council, including the Council Plan.

Again, these are all very broad matters, which does not really give the sector too much direction on what would be considered higher priority or lower priority, and given that challenge it is a bit hard for any local government area to define what is core business and what is essentially not core business. I guess with that we also should know that because there is no clear indication of what is core business, the resourcing of such priorities is also vastly different across the sector.

I guess because of the lack of clarity in the act, those in the community who take an interest in local government have a mixed view of what local government is actually about and what it delivers. From my own experience across the sector and having spoken to a number of current and former councillors over a number of years, core business is generally seen by the sector as local roads, and they are both sealed and unsealed roads; the levying and the management of rates; waste collection and the whole management process around how we deal with waste; advocacy on various projects that might need funding by federal or state grants; the maintenance of local amenities like parks, gardens, footpaths and those sorts of things; the maintenance of local drains; building control and planning; and also animal registrations.

I know that that might be a bit of a subjective view, but that is basically the feedback that I get from a lot of the local government areas in my particular area of the world. The whole point is that others may have a different view on that. The point is that it is not clearly defined, and the fact that other people do have a different view on that does sort of add weight to the idea of having an inquiry to find out what is and what is not core. So until we do have that clarity, there will continue to be a confused view of what local government is and is not responsible for.

The third point of the motion is about the issue of council and their ability to deliver core council services. The real problem is that because there is no identification of what is core and what is not core, there is no general and accepted understanding of how you resource that. Some councils across the state have delved into other areas like flags, for example. I have seen some councils conduct free laughing classes. Some councils have got involved in federal government matters, which I would consider completely out of their remit. In essence, councils have a freedom and ability to delve into areas that others might think are not really appropriate when basic infrastructure like roads and footpaths are probably not being managed as best as they could be.

Another impact that many local governments have to contend with is cost shifting, as I have said, but also imposed costs. That probably sounds like a funny term, but what does ‘imposed costs’ actually mean? I will give you an example. Under the act, at the start of a council term, each council is required to undertake community consultation in order to develop a community vision, a council plan and documents that basically set it up for the next four years. Under the act it is specified that a council must undertake what is known as deliberative engagement. I remember going through this, because I was a councillor at the time and I asked the question, ‘What is deliberative engagement?’ No-one really knew across the sector, and I have got to say, with respect, that Local Government Victoria were not particularly helpful in coming to a view on what deliberative engagement was. So you have got an unclear view of what deliberative engagement is, and most councils at that point in time thought, ‘Okay, that’s a community panel.’ Most – not all, but most – councils around the state decided to convene a community panel. I have got to say there was a conga line of consultants just salivating over this; you could see them lining up with dollar signs in their eyes.

I know that in the shire that I was a councillor for we spent at least $150,000 on this process. In the great scheme of things, $150,000 may not sound so significant for a local government area, but for a large regional council like mine, that was very significant, and that money could have been put towards any manner of things like fixing roads and footpaths and those sorts of things. When we talk about imposed costs, those are the costs that I am talking about, which are entrenched in the act and really inhibit the ability of local government to prioritise funding for areas that really do need it.

The overall revenue structure of local government – this has been such a challenging area for a long period of time. Rates are the primary source of income for local councils. Rates are essentially a property tax. Rates consist of your actual rate in the dollar. They consist of the fire services levy, and they all consist of the waste charge as well. Councils have control over two of these three things. They have control over the rate in the dollar, and they also have control over the waste charge. It is actually an unusual system that councils have when they do their rates, because when we talk about an increase in rates, it is not a particular category of rates that get increased. How it works when working with the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office and those sorts of bodies is that you have to actually look at the total rate take from one year and, depending on what the rate cap is, increase it by whatever it is. This year I think the rate cap is about 3.5 per cent. I was part of a council that actually kept rate increases on hold at zero and was one of only two in the state that did so at the time. It was a challenge, but we heard from our ratepayers that they were continually struggling with paying rates. We heard them, and we made sure that we did the right thing.

Principles that are looked at when rates are set include capacity to pay and access to local services. An issue about the rating system too is about equity. Rates are based primarily on the value of a property and also the rate in the dollar. I look at a place like Colac Otway, where I was a councillor, and a place like the City of Yarra. You can look at the number of dwellings in a place like Yarra and in a place like Colac Otway, which has a lot less dwellings and they are a lot more dispersed. Oddly enough, rates in Colac Otway were about $300 on average more expensive than those in the City of Yarra. Why was that the case? If you look at the provision of services compared to rates, you could say, ‘Well, it’s not like for like.’ But over a long period of time large rural shires – particularly mine – have felt they have had to increase rates just so they could keep up with paying for things like thousands of kilometres of road network. You can compare that to a metro council that has sometimes under 100.

So the funding model for local government is flawed because, particularly with federal assistance grants, it does not take into account the full remit of what a local council has to do – particularly the formula, I might add, which basically gives local governments reasonably fair per person funding; it does not look at all the commitments that a shire has to fund over the course of its entire municipality. For my old patch in Colac Otway a significant part of our shire is actually state land, Crown land, which as you might know is unrateable, so the ability to draw income from that land does not exist, which further creates challenges. That is not unique just to my municipality back in Colac Otway; many rural councils face that as well, which is a big challenge to contend with.

Going back to the federal assistance grants, I want to talk about the ability to pay for other local services as well, such as drainage systems and local roads and footpaths. All of those things face challenges because of an inequity in the revenue streams that are coming from the grants system.

The last major aspect of funding for local government is user fees and charges. Some of these charges are statutory charges. They are usually levied in the planning sector of local governments, but there are others that are not; they are optional. The discretional ones are usually ones to do with pools, leisure centres, libraries, pet registration and those sorts of things. Those aspects of revenue raising are actually quite small compared to the larger aspects of local government. That needs to be considered as a whole part of this process as well, and very importantly the ability to raise revenue in local government but also how it is spent are critical and would form part of this inquiry.

The fifth part of this motion talks about the appropriateness or the sustainability of local government funding and the appropriate alternatives for raising funds. Many in the sector will actually say that the local government model for raising revenue is broken, and they will say that because essentially rates are a property tax. It is just completely bizarre that the 2018 review into local government was a rating review that talked about how we can do rates better. It did not really produce much, and largely it was ignored, with respect. I have a copy of the Local Government Rating System Review and what it means for ratepayers – this was on the local government website – and it does talk about various different things with regard to implementation of the Local Government Act 2020. There were some small outcomes about better payment arrangements for rates, and rebates and concessions, rating exemptions and farm rates, but that is probably not going to bring about meaningful change in the sector. What probably needed to happen was a much more, dare I say it, zoomed out view of how we raise rates or how local government is funded in the sector.

There have been a number of discussions across the sector regarding the future of revenue structures; for example, instead of having a property tax, consider having some revenue-raising capacity relating to income generation. This is particularly relevant to a lot of rural constituents – farmers. Farmers by nature are asset rich – they have a lot of land – but, due to the seasonal nature of their work, can be income poor. Regardless of whether there is a good season or a bad season, farmers have to pay rates, and that is a big challenge.

The last point I will make is about the accountability of local councils in the use of their revenue. I have been through many budget processes in local government. Usually how it works is that the council will develop a budget over the course of probably four or five months. They will put out a draft to the community for consultation – minimum usually four weeks, but sometimes it can go to six. The public have an option to comment, and then the council gets the feedback and usually there is not much change because it is very difficult to change, and it goes through. I had better hurry up. That to me is not genuine consultation. There have got to be ways to have consultation to the input of that rather than actually just having it once it has been put on draft. There have got to be other ways to think about that. Really it is not just how the budget is formed, it is how the money is acquitted as well. Members of the public do have the right to ask questions in councils, but usually they are very structured and limited. The reporting is also very difficult to understand because – (Time expired)

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:28): I rise to make a contribution in opposition to this motion. I have had the benefit of listening to Mr McCracken’s contribution, and I think it was a very thorough and considered contribution. Nevertheless we disagree on a range of things that you put, but I thank you for your contribution. It was, as I said, very considered.

The motion that is before the house today is a motion that is seeking to refer another inquiry to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee in regard to local government funding and service delivery in Victoria, and there is a range of items that are set out within the motion. As I said, I have listened to what Mr McCracken had to say. Local government is an interesting area. In discussions, what I have found is that sometimes local government is much maligned. People have very strongly held views about whether councils should be just simply rates, roads and rubbish, but councils do perform other very important functions. As I said, I was listening to Mr McCracken’s contribution but, for example, child and maternal health is something that is delivered at a local level by councils. Every one of us here who has children has made many a trip to the child and maternal health services. Those sorts of things are important, and of course those services receive funding from other sources to make those things happen. Of course libraries are a really important part of local communities. Not only do libraries obviously provide books, but there are other services. I can remember as a child going to story time at my local library, growing up.

I think what is concerning in this debate is that there seems to be this notion that you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. It is like you should only do these things and only have certain funding streams dedicated to certain things. But as I said, councils do perform a range of very important functions that are not just related to rates, roads and rubbish – for example, planning. One of the primary functions of a local council is to be the planning authority; they make planning approvals in regard to development.

Just back on libraries for a second, libraries are funded to perform a very important function. We saw, for example, throughout the course of the pandemic that libraries lifted and did an amazing job. We saw libraries doing outreach services so people could get their books. They would deliver them to them, or they would see if they could get them electronically if that was possible. Libraries are such a core part of people being able to engage in their communities locally. It is a very simplistic approach to say libraries are just for books. They are not; they provide a range of other programs. I heard Mr McCracken mention something about a library providing a laughing program. So what? That is a good thing, right? I have seen libraries also do things like tai chi programs or, like I said earlier, story time.

I know there was a recent incident with Monash council where some extremists were wanting to stop a story time that was being run by drag queens. We have got to give some flexibility to councils to be able to run programs within the areas for which they are funded. You give funding to libraries, and yes, they are going to provide that service of books, but they do provide these other services. It is a very simplistic kind of line just to say, ‘Well, they shouldn’t do anything else.’ Libraries provide a really important access point for people who might be struggling with mental ill health as well. They provide services for students who might be living at home or in small apartments and do not have space. If they are living in a noisy environment, they may not have a private space or a quiet space to go and study.

The tone that is being struck in this debate is quite critical of councils. I have just been reading through some of the notes, and there are all sorts of attacks saying services are ‘woke’. Honestly, it is really disingenuous for this motion to be moved on the premise of saying, ‘It’s about making sure we have proper funding and appropriate funding,’ when the undercurrent that is running through this motion is really about culture wars – any opportunity to keep the culture wars going in attacking councils or any other entity. As parliamentarians we have been the subject of these sorts of culture war attacks as well. We are not all daft. We can see what is going on and the real motivation that is running through these sorts of things.

As I said, on Tuesday I made a members statement talking about Manningham council deciding to withdraw from the Commonwealth in-home support program for residents. They are saying, ‘Well, we’ve got a funding cut,’ but the bottom line is if you look at the history of councils providing that service, they have actually been providing that service for a very, very long time. And it is a very important service because it allows elderly residents to stay in their homes longer and be supported in their homes. They develop relationships with the carers or the people who provide Meals on Wheels and come into their houses, and sometimes for those elderly residents it may be the only human contact that they have in the whole entire day because they are isolated or their families may not be living around them. Sometimes interactions with those sorts of care or support services are the only meaningful human interaction an elderly person might get.

It is a simplistic kind of sledgehammer approach, just saying, ‘It’s all bad and it’s all got to change. It’s all hopeless.’ There is so much more nuance to it. But the one thing I will just touch on is that I often get concerned about the amount of executive salaries that get paid in local government. If there was any opportunity to review those sorts of arrangements, that would be one. I know that the government has had in place for quite some time rate capping, because that was one of our policies – that we wanted to reduce wasteful spending and the like – and that is obviously very popular with communities. When I am out and about in my community I quite often get people talking to me about rates, and they often comment that they feel they cannot make arrangements with their local council or their council is quite inflexible about hardship measures that they might be experiencing. I note Mr McCracken said this earlier: there are people who might be asset rich but they can be cash-flow poor. If you are a pensioner and you are on a fixed income, you have still got to pay your council rates, and sometimes even the discounts that pensioners can get may not be enough for those people. They have still got to service their property and have money available to service their property.

So all of these impacts can be felt on different levels. But I am disappointed, as I said, that this motion really is about trying to continue the culture wars and using councils as a mechanism for that. In my region I have spoken to Knox council, for example. They have been having some issues with extremist groups turning up to their meetings and disrupting those meetings, being very hostile and threatening towards councillors and raising issues like 5G and those sorts of things. All of that is inappropriate, and the problem we are going to get is that councils will end up closing their public meetings because they are fearful of being attacked or threatened. Whilst you have got to make sure that people can operate in a workplace or environment that is safe and free from threats of violence and harm, you then lose those important aspects of transparency and accountability and things being open to the public so they can actually understand what is going on and see what decisions a council is making and why it is making those decisions. Often it is very important to listen to those debates. I know during COVID councils moved to online meetings, and that was because we had to, obviously, because of COVID. But it is important that those opportunities for the community are there so they can come and sit in on council meetings and participate, ask questions and the like.

As I said, I think this motion is rather disingenuous. I think really it is the opposition dog whistling to some of the dark elements in the community by bringing this motion to the house. As I said, it is pretty obvious what the true motivation is behind this.

I will leave it to other contributors today to go through the many and varied financial supports that government gives to local government to continue to operate. There is the continuation of a range of services that we fund for them, and I know our government regularly supports councils via upgrades to sporting clubs and sportsgrounds and the like. That aids councils. I know some councils struggle with upgrading their asset base, but nevertheless there are important ways that government continues to provide support for the community. Councils are usually the owners of sporting grounds, but government contributes to the upgrades – to sporting clubs, football clubs, netball clubs and those sorts of things. They are all grounds that are owned by local government and very well used.

In Croydon we recently went to Dorset reserve and did an opening of an upgraded sport room there. The University of the Third Age is using those clubrooms as well to have classes for elderly people who engage with the university. So they offer important services, as I said, and it is not something that I really think is necessary to be referred for an inquiry. As I said, I think it is dog whistling to extremist elements and is something that really is undeserved. I know it is a thankless task sometimes to be a public representative, but I just want to thank all the councillors in the sector for standing up and being reps on council.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (15:38): I welcome this motion and congratulate Ms Crozier on bringing it. It is an incredibly important issue. As many of you know, there are many of us who were local government councillors before coming to this place. I was a councillor myself for two years, and I will never forget that when going through the budget planning process I asked a very simple question: which specific services and facilities are local government councils actually required by legislation to provide? I was told by a very, very fancy and very, very expensive budget expert that the way the Local Government Act 2020 is written actually makes this question legally and logically impossible to answer. Rather than creating crystal-clear areas of responsibility, the act actually states that councils can perform any functions that the council determines are necessary. But without clear laws, without clear responsibilities, residents lose out. Nobody can be held accountable for the failure to deliver crucial services. The state government can blame local government. Local government can blame the state. And who is stuck in the middle? Ordinary families, with garbage-quality roads, overcrowded schools and no-one who will take responsibility.

In my discussions with other councillors all over Victoria I was shocked to discover that although councillors are the people democratically elected to represent residents – they are mandated to set the strategy and direction of their local government councils – it is actually bureaucrats that make important decisions, such as signing the entire organisation up to memberships with third-party organisations that then have access to internal data and influence over internal policies and even the spending that is done by councils. I discovered that councillors are impeded from performing their oversight and transparent governance responsibilities by being refused access to the data that they need to make those important decisions. And recently I have heard that council lawyers – the same lawyers that many councillors themselves rely on for advice – were contracted to write a council CEO’s submission to the Minister for Local Government asking that the power to control, regulate and punish councillor behaviour be vested in the hands of that CEO alone. Some people would even go so far as to say that local government is broken, because we have a minister in government that consults only the CEO and admin, and not the ratepayers and the councillors. So I welcome this motion.

Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (15:41): I rise today to talk on the local government funding and service delivery at the local government level. My concern basically with this motion is the cost shifting and service delivery and who should deliver the services the councils are assigned to do. When speaking about funding and service delivery at a local government level, the transfer of financial responsibility from other levels of government to local government is remarkable, requiring local government to find their own way to fund various types of service without adequate resources. This results in the reduction of service, the increase of fees and fundamentally a reduction in quality of the services provided to our community.

Over a period of decades, we have seen the Andrews government take extreme cost-shifting measures and impose them on local government without adequate support. Victorian councils spend more than $8 billion each year providing more than 100 community services and maintaining over $110 billion on local roads, facilities and infrastructure. The impact of cost shifting on local governments is profound. Local governments are then responsible for the delivery of essential services such as waste management, libraries and community centres, and the cost shifting extends to other matters such as climate change response mitigations. In recent years there have been local disaster response and recovery and compliance and other indirect costs which local councils have to consider and find the funds to service.

In my electorate alone, the Western Metropolitan Region, two of the largest growing local government areas in Australia – Wyndham City Council followed by Brimbank City Council – have been hit quite hard by these measures of local government funding in relation to rate capping, which does not take into account the rising CPI over the years. By the end of this decade, Wyndham City Council itself will lose more than $300 million due to rate capping. The loss of these funds means that Wyndham cannot build the desperately needed facilities and services that are not being provided.

Residential aged care is another issue when it comes to community services. Council services provide entry level support at home. This provides more complex support to older people who are otherwise unable to continue living independently in their own home. With the assistance of a range of care options, they are able to continue to live independently in their own home. Again, we see this service reduced through the cost shifting imposed by the Andrews government.

Public libraries are another service in Victoria which is owned and operated by councils, and there we see the cost shifting. I will give you some examples of the results of cost shifting. In the past, public libraries were funded 50–50 with the state government, and now councils are basically paying 80 per cent of the costs of servicing the public libraries. Maternal health services traditionally were a 50–50 split with the state government, and yet now they are looking at 60–40. School crossing supervisors are basically now thought to be the responsibility of councils. Most recently, the onus for the responsible compliance of pool safety fences has been put on councils to enforce and ensure that compliance occurs within their municipalities – without any financial support.

At the last election the Liberal Party recognised this shortfall and took a policy that committed to a $185 million package which was designed to assist local government to support and provide these services. Addressing issues with cost shifting which the Andrews Labor government has done, the package was to include a detailed review of the overall revenue structure of local government and support for the provision of high-profile community assets and services. The package also assisted councils to provide and administer assets and services. It also considered reviewing the user-pays system, including voluntary payments by users of individual community assets and services. It also considered freezing all existing local government business fees, charges and levies. The package also included a four-year suspension of the introduction of new government fees, charges and levies.

It is not about whether this motion is blaming councils for what they can and cannot do, but it is basically about the amount of financial support for them to actually cover all of these services for their community. It is crucial that we move into this committee and review the effect of cost shifting from the state and federal governments to examine the fiscal imbalances as well as the services that local councils should or should not provide and what they can deliver to their local communities. It is also vital that the committee examine the revenue structure of local government and its sustainability and ultimately the various models of funding which they require to fulfil the core service delivery of local government.

I was a councillor prior to entering this Parliament, and I have directly come across various services which the government has proceeded to pass on to local government. I support this inquiry by the Economy and Infrastructure Committee. Hopefully this inquiry will have some recommendations in relation to what councils should or should not deliver to our communities and in relation to the effectiveness of the funding behind these services and whether the existing revenue structure models are sustainable to fund all of these services relating to councils.

On the impact of cost shifting by the Labor government, I will just mention again that it is something that needs to be clearly looked into and investigated. I would just like to emphasise that the one crucial thing is the services that local councils should or should not be delivering in relation to the appropriate funding which they have in their annual budgets. I support this inquiry being undertaken by the Economy and Infrastructure Committee.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:50): I also rise to speak on the motion as put forward by Ms Crozier and as introduced to us today by Mr McCracken in what was a very interesting speech as well, and I thank him for that. I do not mean that sarcastically; it genuinely was.

Right from the start I would like to say that councils provide a wide range and quality of services and infrastructure for our local communities, as they of course ought to do. They do not just provide the bin collections and issue parking fines, they support local sporting clubs and they promote inclusive community programs for children, the elderly and community members with disabilities – many of these my colleague Ms Terpstra referred to in her contribution just before – and our culturally and linguistically diverse communities as well. Councils help to shape our local communities. ‘Local government’ means exactly that: government focused on providing for, representing and delivering for local communities at the most local grassroots and close-knit element of our democratic system.

I am a little wary of the basis that the motion is working from, in particular section (2), which refers to ‘the services local councils should, and should not, be delivering for their communities’. I feel that this indicates something of a contempt for councils. It all but states the desire to have local councils not function fully as a level of government. The motion would prefer to see councils deliver on a list of highly defined authorised services dictated by the state government. As Mr McCracken referred to in his speech when decrying the lack of such a list, it is actually ratepayers that fund councils, and it is residents that elect councillors and whom councils are there to represent. Different areas have different needs, and it is appropriate for councils to represent their communities in the decisions that they make and in the priorities that they put forward. That does not mean that local government cannot or should not work beyond the core services; in fact they should do that. The core services should always be paramount – that being the standard: the recycling, the rubbish, the roads, everything else, library services – but that does not mean further services cannot be brought in, such as things operated by our wonderful local libraries.

As Ms Terpstra referred to, a number of programs have come under quite a significant amount of attention recently when there have been some disgraceful attacks on local councils and absolutely outrageous scenes at council meetings where people with, frankly, very little interest in democracy have stormed places demanding that councils overrule decisions and targeted vulnerable parts of our community to do so. It has been, quite frankly, disgusting, and that has happened in my area too. The administrators’ meeting of Casey council was affected by that, and Knox council, as Ms Terpstra referred to, as well as others in the region, including Yarra Ranges.

In terms of keeping councils responsible and accountable, I do note that there are already a number of mechanisms in place, and this government does have a strong record on that as well. Further to which, so does this Parliament, and I note that earlier this year we did have a Victorian Auditor-General’s Office report into the results of council spending. The Victorian government also has a track record of working productively to deliver these better amenities and services, working with councils to provide benefits for all local communities across the state. The Growing Suburbs Fund is a prime example of that. It is how we work with councils, in many instances beyond what some might call the ‘core services’ that this motion demands they be restricted to.

There has, as has been noted, never been a defined set of core council services. Not all councils provide the same mix of services. There are many services that councils deliver in partnership with the state government and many examples of programs supported by the state government which are created and initiated by councils. We understand this because, unlike what was demonstrated by the opposition when they were last in government, we are committed to providing services to our communities. Unlike them, we understand and respect local democracy. Councils are vital for the delivery of services to local communities. Local governments know their community’s needs better than any other level of government. They are often the best placed to determine what services they need, which is why their input is so invaluable to government at all other levels in the construction of programs and services.

I do want to mention again the Growing Suburbs Fund, which has provided a number of investments, including in my region. For those unaware, it is a significant amount of funding – $450 million through this fund – for interface councils which has actually generated and worked towards investments of over $1.5 billion over the course of the program. In my electorate alone we have had some recent initiatives, including with the Orana Community Place in Clyde North.

This is a project where, in one of the new estates in the regions that Mr Tarlamis and I look after, a new community place has opened with significant support from the state government, with funding of $535,000 in total, $353,000 of which came from the Growing Suburbs Fund. This is a project that has been really beneficial for one of our brand new communities. This community is still not even on many maps, but if you go out there you see the services that are starting to take place. As our city is growing, so too do the services that need to match, and in many of these communities there is a backlog in infrastructure. In time the community around Orana and others like it in Clyde North will no doubt benefit from full-scale local facilities – community centres, libraries et cetera – but whilst these areas are literally still being built, we are putting in the infrastructure and the investment in these community places, such as the Orana Community Place, which will have a huge impact for the community. This is a small-scale, house-sized community centre that in time will be able to be put back towards housing for the local community, but in the meantime and before the further, bigger investment takes place in the area, this is a valuable source of connection and activity for the local community. It is fantastic to see this already up and running and busy. I had the very big privilege of helping to open the centre, along with council, back on 1 April, and there was a huge number of activities already taking place there, including a social enterprise cafe. The outer suburbs of Melbourne are often characterised as soulless or as there being nothing going on out there, but quite the contrary, there are really, really good things happening in the outer suburbs in these new developing areas. I would encourage all members to check out facilities like Orana to see for themselves what is going on and what can be done in our outer suburbs.

Further to Orana, there have been a number of other projects in my area which I have taken quite a bit of interest in. One in particular is the Upper Beaconsfield recreation reserve (UBRR). The community of Upper Beaconsfield, again a very close, tightknit community, has been lobbying for years to get their, frankly, dilapidated community facilities completely overhauled and rebuilt. Very excitingly, last year the state government, the Andrews Labor government, committed $3.35 million out of this Growing Suburbs Fund towards a full rebuild of the Upper Beaconsfield recreation reserve facilities. This is actually the single largest project currently in that Growing Suburbs Fund. We partnered with Cardinia Shire Council to do the project, and there is a huge number of users that will benefit from that facility, including obviously football and cricket but also groups such as Auskick, the pony club, Scouts and adult riding clubs as well.

Sadly, though, recently Cardinia Shire Council presented an alternative plan to the user groups of the UBRR, despite this funding being in place, which significantly reduced the project in size and pricing. The amended plan proposed a partial redevelopment, which would not have been a full rebuild, as had been committed and as had been supported by the government, and it would have been a far worse outcome for the community. It would have left the existing structure in place, and what new elements of the building would have been there would not have been up to standard. The boys changing rooms would have to have been accessed through the kitchen and the girls changing rooms would have to have been accessed by walking around outside the building to the back. So concerned stakeholders of the reserve contacted me to ask for assistance, and I joined with a lower house colleague Emma Vulin, who shares a border with Upper Beaconsfield, and we demanded and advocated to council that the full rebuild be put back on the table.

I visited the facility. I saw firsthand the condition of the property and was definitely even further convinced that this complex must be rebuilt. I also met with Cr Brett Owen, who has been a passionate advocate for this project and for his community. I also wrote to and met with the Cardinia CEO Carol Jeffs, who was very receptive, and engaged with mayor Tammy Radford, who was incredibly interested in this project as well. We lobbied and continued to provide that campaigning assistance to the local community, and I am very happy to advise that after those discussions council has now come back to the community with a full commitment to rebuild this centre, to fully maximise and fully utilise those Growing Suburbs Fund funds that the Andrews Labor government is offering, and I look forward to working with the council. I know they are working through their budget process at the moment, and along with the member for Pakenham I will be continuing to push for this project for our local community. This is just one example of the many ways in which the Andrews Labor government is supporting our councils, particularly our interface and peri-urban councils, to deliver the services and infrastructure that our growing communities absolutely need.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (16:00): Legalise Cannabis Victoria welcomes this debate, which ultimately pivots on the centrality of local government to the lives of all Victorians. As I have said in this place previously, I believe local government to be a critical element of the warp and weft of our democratic society. There is no level of government that is more accessible or I believe more responsive to the local community. I have also expressed previously my concerns over the propensity of state governments of both persuasions to unilaterally overrule local governments. As a local resident activist in Melbourne for more than 25 years, I have regularly witnessed planning ministers sweep aside proposed planning schemes or planning approvals that have often been the product of months or even years of consultation and negotiation.

In speaking to this proposed referral as it appears on the notice paper, I would firstly note that we have not had anyone from the opposition approach us about this proposal. I note that likewise no conversation has been initiated by the opposition with Ms Purcell, the chair of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee, either. That said, we would offer some observations about the proposed terms of reference.

Term of reference 2 identifies ‘the services local councils should, and should not, be delivering for their communities’. Councils understand all too well the expectations of their residents as to essential and basic service provision. Further, on a range of more discretionary expenditures it is up to the democratic process at that local government level to determine how resources are allocated. In the absence of regulatory non-compliance or malfeasance, Legalise Cannabis Victoria believes it is not for a committee of this place to determine what services a council should or should not be delivering.

Term of reference 3 refers to ‘whether local councils are adequately delivering on their core service delivery objectives’. All too often over the years we have seen the education debate in this country dumbed down to simplistic notions of the three R’s. While I am not suggesting that the opposition is proposing any such simplistic approach to the complexities of local government, it does concern me that such a term of reference could be interpreted as telling councils to stick to garbage, rates and animal waste by-products. As was noted before, local government is a democratic institution, and if councillors fail to deliver on core services, there is an inevitable consequence: they get voted out. And that is as it should be.

Terms of reference 4 and 5 strike to the question of the structure and sustainability of funding for local government. These are very important questions that are of great concern across councils and their communities.

Term of reference 6 refers to ‘the accountability of local councils in the use of revenue to deliver core services’. Once again I feel my spidey senses tingling and the hairs on the back of my neck rising. Recently we have all witnessed examples of reprehensible and intimidatory behaviour at some council meetings. Much of this has referenced the discretionary use of revenue by councils. While I am sure it is not the intention of the opposition to grab a big slab of raw, bleeding meat and to throw it into those public debates, many might see such a term of reference as doing just that. As I said before, in the absence of regulatory non-compliance or malfeasance, accountability is through councils engaging with their communities and ultimately through the ballot box.

To sum up, there are important issues that this place should consider on the question of local government. For example, in my region of Western Metropolitan, local councils are wrestling with the complexities and challenges of multiple growth corridors. For these councils there are critical questions, including rate capping, the distribution of developer contributions and inadequate coordination and collaboration between councils and state government on the delivery of services and infrastructure, to name but a few.

There are terms of reference contained within this referral motion that do strike to important revenue and resource issues. However, they commingle currently with terms of reference that, as I have raised previously, cause us major concern. Accordingly, we will not be supporting the referral but would welcome the opportunity to explore these issues in the future to enhance and strengthen the role of local government.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (16:05): I am pleased to stand and speak in support of this motion. I thank the members of this house for their contributions to this important debate. I want to move amendments on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals. I move:

1. Omit paragraphs (2) and (6).

2. In paragraph (5), after ‘appropriate;’ insert ‘and’.

These will be circulated in the chamber.

I am pleased to stand and speak in support of this motion for the Economy and Infrastructure Committee to examine local government funding and service delivery in Victoria by 30 June next year. The terms of reference include the effects of cost shifting from the state and federal governments to local councils and the overall revenue structure of local government, and if that existing structure is sustainable or if alternative models of funding would be more appropriate. The electorate of Northern Victoria that I represent covers nearly half of the state, and there are 27 local councils in the region. This inquiry will provide an important opportunity for feedback – to examine what is working well with the delivery of local council services and what can be done better. I have met with many councils across the region and understand that it is not always clear who pays for what or how much each should pay.

The school crossing system is an example of a state government program, but local councils are being left to pick up the bill. In March this year the Strathbogie council decided to exit the school crossing program because it was costing local ratepayers about $50,000 each year to deliver. By doing so, they sent a strong message to the Victorian government to deliver the school crossing supervision program to ensure the safety of local kids. The council was paying about 62 per cent of the program cost to deliver this state government service, and they have now joined 28 other local government areas across the state seeking the restoration of funds for this critical service. The survey undertaken late last year of 40 councils found that 97 per cent of councils have unsupervised crossings, putting our children at risk. It is clear that the system is not working. In 2016 the Victorian government said we needed a new model. They committed to a strategic review of the school crossing system, but the review has not progressed.

Local councils often go cap in hand to the state government seeking funding, especially after the floods. Our regional roads were already in disrepair and the floods made them even worse. The same could be said for the repair of levee banks that exist to protect assets from flooding. The state government needs to undertake urgent work to repair these levies, and various authorities are involved, including catchment management authorities, Parks Victoria and local councils. Another example is committees of management that voluntarily look after Crown land reserves owned by the state. There are over 1000 of these committees of management in the state. I have been involved on these committees, and I know how frustrating it can be to get action. Local council defers to the state government, the state government defers to the local council, and who pays for what? These are just a few examples of the cost shifting that occurs between state and local governments.

The inquiry would also be an opportunity to look at the disparity in funding models where inner-city councils benefit from high-density housing but regional councils have fewer properties that cover a much larger area. The same as well with parking revenue – that is something that can be raised in the city and not in many of our regional areas. I know some residents are concerned about the amount of council rates that we pay and also when councils go beyond the role of roads, rates and rubbish. But as mentioned by my colleagues in this chamber, the Local Government Act 2020 is not very clear and it needs to be clarified. This inquiry would give an opportunity to residents across Victoria to provide feedback. We need to address the cost shifting between state and local governments and use this inquiry to work with Victoria’s local councils to deliver better quality and more affordable services for us all.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:10): I am pleased to continue the debate on Ms Crozier’s motion in relation to a reference to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee which proposes an inquiry into local government funding and service delivery here in Victoria. In opening, I think it is fair to say that we agree wholeheartedly across the chamber that local governments play an exceptionally important role in our democratic system of government. They are an important part of our democratic structures here in Australia and also a place of important service delivery and community advocacy.

I know, Acting President Berger, that you and I upon our election to this place as new members for Southern Metropolitan Region spent quite a while visiting our local councils talking with mayors and CEOs about the range of services they provide and the issues and challenges that our communities confront. Through those meetings we got to understand quite well, I think, the dynamics that are at play between state and local governments but also between federal, state and local governments and the inevitable challenges that exist for different governments, different elected representatives, with occasionally differing perspectives on the mandates that they have been delivered to advocate on behalf of, deliver services to and prioritise the allocation of resources within their local communities. Those meetings, Acting President, I think have given both of us a really good understanding of the challenges and the issues that our local councils face. It is the kind of advocacy and engagement I look forward to continuing over the remainder of this parliamentary term.

In relation to the motion that is before us, a motion that we now appear to have amendments to, I think what has been demonstrated quite clearly through the contributions that others in the chamber have made are some of the problems that we see exist with this motion and particularly some of the consequences that we would see from an inquiry such as this examining these matters. I find it interesting that the opposition have decided that they have made a little bit of a mistake in suggesting the terms of reference for this inquiry. Obviously they no longer believe that they want some sort of Victorian parliamentary inquiry determining what local government should be doing, because that is the effect of paragraph (2) of the proposed terms of reference here. The inquiry was going to look at the services that local councils should and should not be delivering for their communities – sitting in judgement over the top of our elected councils and telling them what it is that they should and should not be doing. We think that having a committee of the Victorian Parliament doing such an interrogation of our local councils is not a recipe for harmony or for improving service delivery at a local level; in fact we think it is more likely to be the source of significant antagonism and debate across local government. Also the proposed amendments seek to remove paragraph (6) of the proposed terms of reference, which would remove the proposed function of the committee to look at whether councils are being accountable in the use of their revenue to deliver core services.

We do not know why the opposition has decided that it needs to change the terms of reference to its own proposed inquiry. Clearly the contributions from this side of the chamber have been so persuasive in demonstrating just how flawed this proposal would be that they have been forced to come into the house and propose amendments to their own motion because of just how ill thought through it was in the first place. I am also across the insertion of ‘and’ after the second ‘appropriate’ in paragraph (5). I think I have figured that one out, so I do not need any further clarification from them on that.

But I do think the house would benefit from some clarification from the opposition as to why they found that their original motion needs to be changed. Why did they get it so wrong in their original proposal? Certainly what we have seen from this side is a reasonable critique of what they have been proposing – a critique that has been so reasonably effective that they have decided to change it. I think we would all welcome a contribution from the opposition explaining exactly why they feel it is no longer necessary to do the things that a short time ago they felt were necessary, which brings me to a broader point about how we reflect on what decisions some of our local councils are making in terms of their prioritisation and the services in their communities.

The advocacy that we have seen from many community groups has been about some of the unfortunate decisions that councils are making, particularly in relation to the provision of home and community care services in our community. It is a great shame that so many of our councils, particularly across metropolitan Melbourne, have been taking decisions to back away from home and community care services in our community, and I certainly think that those sorts of decisions are raised in our conversations with our local councils. When we go and meet with them we say that we think the services they provide are actually pretty good and we think that they should continue to provide them. The absolutely splendid advocacy we have had from the Australian Services Union has highlighted just what value highly trained home and community care workers have for members of their community who may be elderly or sick and may need support in their homes, and we see some of our local councils here in Melbourne walking away from their local residents by shutting down these services and vacating the field. We do not think that that is the kind of prioritisation that is in anyone’s interests, let alone ratepayers of these communities.

In making those comments, though, I do want to make special mention of the City of Bayside, which, unlike pretty much all of their neighbours, have made the decision to stay in home and community care services and stay in the aged care system and are actually expanding their role in our aged care setting and expanding the range of services that they provide. I think it is a credit to the City of Bayside for taking that approach.

The last thing I want to do in my contribution today is just make some reflections on the topic of council conduct and how our local government authorities are engaging with their communities – reflecting on a report from the Ombudsman that we saw tabled in Parliament just the other day – in relation to one of the councils in the Southern Metropolitan Region, the City of Glen Eira. It is particularly in relation to complaints from a resident who had some issues with a contractor that the city had engaged to undertake some works on their street. The unfortunate practice that we see – which the Ombudsman has highlighted in this instance but is replicated across other local governments across Melbourne – is where councils appear to be willing to contract out the complaints process to the contractors instead of standing up for their constituents.

I thought I would read a short passage from the Ombudsman’s report, which was tabled only a couple of days ago, which says:

As public authorities, councils have an enduring obligation and interest to handle complaints about the delivery of their services. This is perhaps even more so where the services are contracted out. It is surely in councils’ best interests to be alert to service delivery performance.

The Ombudsman went on to say at paragraph 81:

The 2020 Act outlines that councils are responsible for dealing with complaints about contractors. A council cannot exclude itself from the complaint process. Councils should always assess whether a complaint process is required and, if so, ensure that an internal review pathway is provided.

The report goes on to say:

Ultimately, many Victorian councils have work to do in developing and adequately explaining the process for contractor complaints in their complaint policies.

It is worth mentioning in the context of a debate about local government service delivery that the Ombudsman has only this week indicated to our councils that they cannot contract out the complaints processes when they contract out their services. That is the kind of role that the Ombudsman can play in making our service delivery here in Victoria improved. It is a practical contribution to improving public service delivery here in Victoria. It is the kind of way that we can improve service delivery at local government level without the need to resort to establishing a parliamentary committee that will lord it over our local councils and start meddling in their affairs.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:20): There are a few things I would like to address there. There is a lot in local government, and I am very proud to speak on this motion. My mother Jenny was actually a local councillor for some 16 years at the City of Banyule and a former mayor as well; I kind of grew up around local government.

I just want to respond to a couple of things, because I know we have seen cost shifting from this government around local councils, whether it is in kinder or waste or maternal health services. As someone who is using maternal health services at the moment, you see that going on, you see that around. I note Mr Batchelor’s comment that we are somehow sitting in judgement of local government. This is the same side of politics that has been briefing out about taking over local government planning processes. Is the Deputy Premier sitting in judgement of every single local council? Because that is what they are briefing on that side of the aisle. They are briefing out that they are going to take over local government planning controls. So they are the side that is quite clearly sitting in judgement of every single local government council in Victoria, and they have done the same thing in Boroondara, as I know Ms Crozier said. You have even got this side of politics sitting in judgement of Labor-aligned councils like Darebin, calling for ministerial intervention into planning decisions where there is a Labor mayor. So they are even sitting in judgement of their own councillors. I would say on the ‘sitting in judgement’ line, this government does plenty of sitting in judgement of local government. They know they do. They talk about it all the time through media channels. So to say that we are somehow sitting in judgement and they are not I found quite amusing.

On the topic of local government, I think this is an important motion. We have done quite a bit of listening as Liberal and National parties, particularly to local government, and I was very pleased to have Leader of the Opposition John Pesutto come out to the northern suburbs to meet with the Northern Councils Alliance, representatives of councils across the northern suburbs, including Banyule, Darebin, Hume, Merri-bek, Whittlesea, Nillumbik and Mitchell shire. Together they represent over 1 million Victorians, and we know, through what local government is telling us, there is cost shifting from this government onto local government. They are using them to, I guess, carry a bit of the debt that they are carrying, which is costing Victorians $10 million a day in interest repayments. No wonder the Premier is out there, angry at the RBA, because every time that increases, the $10 million a day everyone is paying in interest to service the debt also increases.

We know that local government is having great difficulty adequately delivering on core service objectives. There are some instances where our local councils need to ensure the focus of things in their council and also still be able to do some of those advocacy priorities, particularly in the north. The government is very quick to blame councils, whether it be in Kalkallo, where they are blaming the council, or Mickleham or some of the planning issues. They are always blaming local government when things tend to be their fault, like the shocking state of Donnybrook Road or the shocking state of Mickleham Road or Somerton Road. I have said this before, but local residents always tell me they know the difference between a state government arterial road and a local government road just by looking at the length of the grass. Local government are keeping up with their end of the bargain, but it is state government roads that are letting people down, and that is certainly what local government has told me.

One thing many councils in the north have told me, which I am sure they have told Dr Ratnam as well, is they would love a duplication of the Upfield line and to look at the northern loop line which was proposed by Terry Mulder in a Public Transport Victoria development plan back in 2012, a former coalition transport minister. That would duplicate the Upfield line and extend that out to the Craigieburn line and electrify the track to Wallan. Certainly that is a significant advocacy priority, and we need local government to get back to being able to advocate for their communities, because they are also elected. I am very cognisant of the fact that they are elected as well, and as we transition to single-member wards we need to make sure that they can still be champions of their communities and we can listen to them and work with them, as the Liberals and Nationals are doing, working with our councils.

As a new member of Parliament I have taken the initiative of meeting with every single council and CEO. There is not one single mayor or CEO that does not have my personal phone number. I am constantly speaking and listening to my local councils. Even the Labor ones have strong criticisms of some of the cost shifting that they are having to put up with thanks to the debt and overspending of this government, which, as Ms Shing will know, is costing Victorians $10 million a day just to service the interest on the debt. We know that there has been cost shifting going on, as I said, whether it be child and maternal health services, whether it be kinder or other services. I know just from speaking to my local neighbourhood house in Wallan that they are facing those pressures as well.

I do support this motion; it is really important. As a member of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee I am looking forward to working with colleagues to try to help solve some of those issues and highlight some of those issues that local government are facing.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (16:27): The Greens have long been hearing concerns from the local government sector, particularly with regard to cost shifting and structural impacts on their long-term financial sustainability, and we see merit in this inquiry. We did hold some significant concerns, like we have heard from Mr Ettershank and a number of members of the government, around the original terms of reference for this inquiry. We were concerned that it would have the potential to provide a platform for those who are intent on undermining and curtailing the role of local government in our democracy, and we thank the opposition for their willingness to take on these concerns and amend the terms of reference to remove those points that really suggested that the state government is somehow best placed to determine what services councils should and should not be providing.

The Local Government Act outlines councils’ responsibilities and how to measure the adequacy of service delivery, and we would question the purview of a parliamentary inquiry to determine this. Surely it is for the community and for council to determine what services they need, and that is often best highlighted in rural communities where we see tremendous innovation and responsiveness to community needs. A local community transport service, for example, like the one run by Pyrenees Shire Council, is critical for more isolated residents who require access to health and other key services and has strong community support. What is a core service for one community may not be for another, and the ability of councils and communities to determine this for themselves goes to the very heart of what local government is about.

We believe that the amended terms of reference for this inquiry better reflect the challenges that councils are facing, and they are very real. A growing number of councils are facing uncertain financial futures as a result of state and federal government policies. Councils are required to do more and more with less and less, and this is reflected in the trend towards underlying deficits and growing asset renewal gaps. State and federal governments continually expand the requirements of councils or make announcements about new capital projects or programs but expect councils to foot the bill through initial co-contributions and typically also the associated ongoing maintenance and operational expenses. Libraries, for example, used to be funded 50–50 local and state government. Now local government contributes 83 per cent of public library funding.

Rates are one of the very few sources of revenue for councils, and rate capping has severely constrained their financial capacity. Pegging the rate cap to predicted CPI increases fails to reflect the drivers of costs for councils, which are linked to growth in materials and labour costs rather than those of common household goods. The increases in costs of construction and labour were particularly evident during COVID, and all levels of government are feeling the pain of that. However, unlike other levels of government, councils have limited levers to respond to this.

I have many rural councils in my electorate, and the consistent message I hear from them is that the current system of rate capping is failing them and their communities. Rural councils serve relatively small populations over very large geographical areas. They comprise 11.5 per cent of the population but 77.2 per cent of the state’s land area and are responsible for 62 per cent of Victoria’s local road networks. They generally face higher costs due to a lack of economies of scale and can struggle to attract suppliers and workers. Many of these councils have to step in where markets and other levels of government are failing – for example, on affordable housing, local public transport and aged care services.

One result of rate capping is that councils often have to forgo things like asset renewal in order to keep essential services running. Another result of rate capping is that councils are increasingly reliant on government grants, which are also reducing and which are generally competitive. This system has many problems, the least of which is that they make it very difficult for councils to plan. They do not keep up with the actual costs of delivery either. This has been highlighted in recent years with escalating costs for capital and labour to deliver projects, but there has been no provision made in grant funding, so councils are left to foot the extra bill that is left over when the costs of a project go up.

Another message I have heard consistently from rural councils, in particular those that have experienced infrastructure damage incurred from climate-related events, is that recovery grants, which are again generally competitive, only provide like-for-like replacement and no incentive for funding to support improvements that build resilience and reduce the likelihood of damage to that infrastructure in the future. The local government sector has long been advocating for these and many other issues to be taken seriously by state government. The Greens will continue to advocate for measures that support our councils to thrive and serve the needs of their communities, and we welcome this inquiry with the amended terms of reference.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:32): Can I thank the Greens and those that will be supporting this sensible motion that stands in my name. It really is getting to the heart of what we do in this place, and that is to have inquiries into important issues, and this one is looking into local government funding and service delivery in Victoria. The Liberals and Nationals took a policy to the last election. We had a suite of reforms where we wanted to see local government have an ability to work with and improve on the services that they provide. This inquiry will be looking at the cost shifting that is occurring at the moment and how councils are really struggling to be able to do the service delivery that they are charged with.

A couple of examples come to mind. Maternal and child health nurses, who need to have those services delivered through local governments, are just not being provided in areas like Casey, Wyndham and Melton, where there are not enough maternal and child health nurses on the ground to be able to deliver those services. I have raised this issue many, many times. This is a core service of local councils that just cannot be delivered. So this is one of the areas that, for instance, this inquiry could look at future funding models or perhaps what needs to be done so that women in these areas, new parents and new babies can get those basic services. They are basic services that should be able to be provided, but the Andrews Labor government has let these new mothers, new parents and new babies down on too many occasions.

In my own area of Southern Metropolitan Region and indeed yours, Acting President Berger, there is Boroondara – that you know only too well. Mr Batchelor, you said councils have the decision-making process. Well, they do not in our areas, as you should know. In Boroondara the government has taken over the decision-making around planning decisions. They have had no ability to have a say on that, and it has really been terribly difficult for councils to be able to look at their planning needs, the local amenity and the concerns of residents and the community as a whole.

That is why this is a really important inquiry that can look at these issues. Obviously it is really looking, as the motion points out, at the effects of cost shifting from the state and federal governments to local councils; whether local councils are adequately delivering on their core service delivery objectives, as I have just highlighted; the overall revenue structure of local government; and whether the existing revenue structure is sustainable and appropriate or if alternative models of funding would be more suitable and appropriate.

So yes, we did amend this motion just very, very slightly, but the overall intent of this referral, which is a sensible one for the Economy and Infrastructure Committee to look into, is to look at those cost shifting structures and the cost shifting that is actually occurring.

With those words I would urge all members in the chamber to support the amended motion and get the Economy and Infrastructure Committee to undertake this important work on behalf of the entire Victorian community.

Amendments agreed to.

Council divided on amended motion:

Ayes (20): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (17): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Amended motion agreed to.