At a Glance

• Misinformation and disinformation can weaken trust in public institutions and damage democratic life
• Councils should promote transparency and access to accurate information without becoming arbiters of election disputes
• Public debates can improve accountability by requiring candidates to explain and defend their positions
• Strong local democracy depends on informed residents, fair process, and open civic discussion

Truth Matters Most When Democracy Is Tested

I have always believed that the health of local democracy depends not only on participation, but on the quality of information available to the public. Elections are moments of judgment. They ask residents to weigh competing claims, assess character, and decide who is best placed to represent their interests. That task becomes far more difficult when misinformation and disinformation are allowed to cloud public understanding.

In reflecting on this period, I am reminded that false or misleading claims do more than distort a single issue. They corrode trust in institutions, complicate sensible decision making, and create unnecessary division within the community. That is why I have previously spoken about the importance of confronting misinformation, particularly during election season, when public attention is heightened and the temptation to exploit confusion can be strongest.

There is an important distinction to be made here. Misinformation may arise through error or misunderstanding. Disinformation is more deliberate. It is falsehood used as an instrument of manipulation. Both are harmful, but the latter speaks to a deeper disregard for democratic integrity.

Transparency Is the First Defence

I have long held the view that the most effective response to falsehood is not simply rebuttal, but transparency. When institutions provide the public with clear, accurate, and timely information, the space in which distortion can take root is reduced. That is why we have worked to improve access to information through Mayoral Minutes, public reporting, media communication, and measures to strengthen openness in council processes.

I was pleased to receive support from the Minister for the initiative to webcast council briefings. That reform reflects a principle I have consistently advanced. Public confidence is strengthened when residents can see more clearly how decisions are informed and discussed. Transparency is not a matter of presentation. It is a matter of democratic trust.

The more clearly an institution speaks, the less room there is for others to define its actions through speculation or misrepresentation. That is especially important in local government, where resources may be modest but the public consequences of mistrust are significant.

“Public debates are a great platform to focus the information, dispel misinformation and disinformation, create engagement in the political process, and boost public interest.”

The Proper Role of Council During an Election

At the same time, institutions must understand the limits of their role. As we enter an election period, councils inevitably receive complaints about campaign conduct, signage, use of information, and false claims. These matters can be contentious, and often politically charged. It is therefore important that councils do not place themselves in the position of adjudicating electoral disputes that should properly be handled independently.

That is why the decision to engage the New South Wales Electoral Commission to conduct the election is so important. If an independent body has been entrusted with that responsibility, then it should be allowed to exercise that role with diligence and authority. Complaints received by Council should be referred on accordingly, regardless of who lodges them or against whom they are directed.

What was clear to me is that this approach protects not only the integrity of the process, but the impartial standing of the institution itself. Councils must remain above the contest in an administrative sense, even as they continue to support the democratic conditions in which the contest takes place fairly.

Debate Is a Public Good

Yet neutrality in administration should not be confused with passivity in civic life. I have always believed that elections should be more than a contest of names on a ballot paper. They should be opportunities for the public to hear ideas tested, claims examined, and positions clarified.

That is why public debate matters. When candidates are required to answer questions in a public forum, they are asked to move beyond slogans and speak with greater precision. They must explain what they believe, why they believe it, and how they would act if entrusted with office. That process is good for voters, good for accountability, and good for democracy.

Public debates also do something else that is often underestimated. They elevate the level of public attention. They focus discussion on matters of substance and create a common civic moment in which residents can engage with the issues that will shape their community. In that sense, debate is not simply an event. It is a democratic service.

Creating Space for an Informed Community

My proposal that Council, in collaboration with the Southwest Voice, support two voluntary debates before the election is grounded in that belief. The role of Council in this instance is limited to logistics. The moderation, handling of questions, and overall format are to be managed independently by Eric Kontos, whose experience and credibility make him well suited to that task.

I am grateful for his willingness to contribute his time and effort, and for the longstanding role the Southwest Voice has played in helping inform the Campbelltown community. Institutions are strengthened when public minded individuals and organisations contribute to civic understanding in this way.

I am also hopeful that these forums can be webcast and recorded. If we are serious about transparency, then extending access beyond those who can attend in person is the logical next step. Information should travel as far as possible, particularly when it concerns the democratic choices of residents.

Reflection

In the end, democracy depends not only on the right to vote, but on the conditions that make that vote meaningful. Those conditions include truth, openness, fair process, and the opportunity for serious public discussion. I remain convinced that local government serves its community best when it defends transparency, respects institutional boundaries, and helps create the space for residents to hear, question, and judge for themselves.

Read the original Mayoral Minute here: Dynamic and Informed Election