At a Glance

• Reform must address both administrative integrity and democratic legitimacy
• Simpler conduct rules and greater transparency can strengthen public trust
• Council structure and voter representation remain central to any serious reform agenda
• The deeper question is whether councillors act as delegates, trustees, or something in between

Reform Must Be More Than Administrative Repair

I have always believed that meaningful local government reform must do more than respond to a scandal, a headline, or a cycle of ministerial frustration. It must ask a deeper question about what local government is for and what kind of democratic institution we expect it to be. In reflecting on the reform conversation now unfolding in New South Wales, what is clear to me is that we are again confronting the long standing tension at the centre of local government itself.

Councils are expected to be efficient service providers, but they are also democratic institutions. They must maintain roads, manage waste, and deliver community services, while also giving expression to representation, public deliberation, and local accountability. That dual role has shaped the history of reform in this State and, in my view, continues to drive the present agenda.

Too often, reform begins with State dissatisfaction, gathers media momentum, and proceeds toward an inquiry whose recommendations point in familiar directions. Administrative improvement is needed, certainly. But if reform is to endure, it must also take seriously the democratic design of local government.

A Long Delayed Administrative Agenda

The Minister for Local Government has made clear that he sees a genuine opportunity for substantial reform. I agree that this is a moment that should not be wasted. In many respects, the sector has laboured under arrangements that have become too convoluted, too reactive, and too difficult for either councillors or the public to navigate with confidence.

The Minister’s concern with behavioural standards, staff protection, and lawful process is well founded. Councils need clear rules, fair procedures, and frameworks that protect professional staff from coercion and improper pressure. Good governance depends not only on the integrity of elected representatives, but on the confidence and independence of those who advise and administer.

I was particularly encouraged by the Minister’s support for webcasting council briefings. I have consistently held the view that transparency is one of the surest safeguards of democratic trust. When decision shaping discussions occur in greater public view, institutions become stronger, not weaker. Campbelltown’s decision to webcast briefings reflects that principle and I remain grateful to my fellow councillors who supported that step.

The Minister was also right to identify the current code of conduct framework as overly complex. A code that becomes so lengthy and elaborate that few can readily understand it is no longer serving clarity. In my experience, rules must be intelligible if they are to command respect.

Representation Is a Structural Question

Yet the reform debate cannot stop at conduct, transparency, or procedure. The deeper and more difficult question is structural. How should representation be organised so that councils remain both effective and democratically legitimate?

The ward system illustrates the challenge well. At first glance, wards appear to offer a straightforward mechanism for local representation. They can bring councillors closer to particular communities and make elections more accessible to candidates with fewer resources. Smaller electoral areas may lower practical barriers to entry and broaden participation.

But there is another side to that equation. Smaller wards may also intensify the influence of dominant local interests and make it harder for minority voices to aggregate support across the whole city. In a growing and increasingly diverse community, that is not a minor concern. Representation is not simply about proximity. It is also about inclusion.

What was clear to me in examining the options is that the question is not merely how many wards a council should have, but what kind of democratic outcome the structure is likely to produce. A system that is easier to contest may not always be the one that best reflects the full diversity of a city.

One Vote, One Value Cannot Be Ignored

I have long considered equitable representation to be one of the least examined but most important issues in local government reform. If we take seriously the democratic principle of one vote, one value, then it becomes difficult to ignore the extraordinary variation in voter representation across councils in New South Wales.

Campbelltown’s ratio of voters to councillor sits very differently from that of a number of other metropolitan councils. In some comparisons, our residents appear relatively well represented. In others, they appear significantly underrepresented. Such disparities reveal an uncomfortable truth. We speak often of fairness within a council area, particularly when drawing ward boundaries, yet accept far greater inequality between councils across the State.

That is not a stable basis for democratic legitimacy. At the State level, electoral equality is treated as a constitutional principle requiring regular review. Local government should not be exempt from the same seriousness of thought.

This does not mean the answer is obvious. Fewer councillors may improve efficiency and reduce the undue influence of narrow interests. More councillors may deepen deliberation and broaden the range of voices at the table. The difficulty lies in balancing institutional workability with democratic fairness.

Delegates, Trustees, and the Public Interest

The reform discussion also raises an older and more philosophical question: what is a councillor for? Is an elected representative primarily a delegate, bound to reflect the immediate wishes of constituents, or a trustee, elected to exercise judgment in the long term interests of the whole community?

I am reminded that this tension sits at the heart of democratic life. Councillors must listen carefully to their communities, but they must also govern for the city as a whole. That can require decisions that are not always popular in the short term. It can also require the courage to explain why a broader public good should prevail over narrower pressures.

I have always believed that councillors must speak openly about these choices. They should justify their positions publicly and allow the electorate to judge whether they are acting from conviction, prudence, or expedience. That is why political communication matters. Silence does not strengthen democracy. Honest explanation does.

Reflection

In the end, local government reform will only succeed if it addresses both sides of the ledger: administrative integrity and democratic purpose. We need clearer rules, stronger protections, and greater transparency. But we also need a more mature conversation about representation, council structure, and the kind of judgment we expect from those elected to serve. I remain of the view that reform worthy of the name must not simply make councils easier to manage. It must make them more credible, more representative, and more capable of serving the long view of place.

Read the original Mayoral Minute here: Local Government - Reform Agenda