At a Glance
• Accountability depends on clear lines of responsibility and the public visibility to judge performance
• Complex government arrangements can blur who owes what to whom, especially on housing delivery
• Cost shifting weakens local services and quietly transfers burdens to ratepayers
• Extending access to council briefings can lift understanding and reduce misinformation

The Public Right to See Clearly

In November 2023, I spoke about the growing focus on transparency and accountability in local government. I return to it now because it is not a passing fashion. It is an enduring expectation. Communities do not ask for perfection. They ask for clarity. They ask for honesty. They ask for institutions that can be relied upon to explain what they are doing, why they are doing it, and how well it is working.

It is tempting, in public life, to treat accountability as a slogan. Yet accountability is a practice. It is an obligation to answer for the performance of duties, matched with the right of others to demand that answer. In local government, that other is the community. For accountability to be real, residents need visibility over duties, performance, and explanation. In other words, accountability cannot exist without transparency.

When Complexity Dilutes Responsibility

Australia’s system of federal, state and local government brings strengths, but also complications. Overlapping responsibilities can produce confusion, and confusion is a convenient shelter for poor performance. We see this in the housing debate, where national ambition, state planning reform, infrastructure constraints and local assessment processes all intersect.

When targets are not met, the public is often left to sift through a familiar contest of explanations. Is the shortfall due to insufficient infrastructure investment, slow approvals, or planning settings that do not align with delivery realities. Too often, the contest becomes a blame game. The public watches government argue with itself, while the basic question remains unanswered: who is responsible for what, and what is being done about it.

I have always believed that governance is continuous. It does not begin and end with an election cycle. When responsibility becomes blurred, accountability becomes a luxury that everyday people cannot easily afford. And when accountability becomes a luxury, trust begins to erode.

Cost Shifting and the Quiet Pressure on Local Services

There is another issue, less visible than housing headlines, yet deeply consequential for councils and communities. It is cost shifting. When other levels of government transfer responsibilities to councils without adequate funding, the cost does not disappear. It lands on local budgets and, ultimately, on local people through reduced services or deferred improvements.

The figures referenced in my Minute were stark. A report commissioned by Local Government NSW and prepared by Morrison Low identified 1.36 billion dollars in cost shifted expenses in the 2021 to 2022 year, an increase from 2017 to 2018. Put simply, that is money that could otherwise support local infrastructure, community facilities, and the everyday services residents notice most.

What concerns me is not merely the number, but the effect it has on civic life. Cost shifting turns local government into a buffer for decisions made elsewhere. It weakens financial viability and makes councils appear responsible for outcomes they cannot fully control. If we are serious about accountability, cost shifting must be addressed transparently, with clear responsibilities and fair funding.

Practising What We Ask of Others

When we call for transparency from other tiers of government, we must apply the same standard to ourselves. I am proud that council meeting livestreaming has been in place since February 2020, supported by state requirements that meetings be broadcast online. Despite occasional technical issues, the community feedback has been generally positive.

Webcasting is not a performance. It is a record. It invites scrutiny, improves the accuracy of minutes, and expands access to residents who cannot be physically present. It also makes it harder for misinformation to thrive, because it provides an unfiltered source for what was said and decided.

But there is an important question that I raised in this Minute, and it goes to the heart of public confidence. Councillors receive briefings where staff distil complex reports into clearer explanations and, at times, expert advice is provided. That process supports better decision making. Yet why should that clarity be reserved for those sitting at the table.

Our residents deserve to understand the information that shapes decisions. It is not enough to publish dense reports and then keep the explanation behind closed doors. We must bridge the gap between deliberation and public comprehension.

Our residents, who entrust us with the responsibility of making decisions, deserve the same level of accessibility to the information that informs these decisions.

Briefings, Confidentiality and Public Understanding

I recognise that some matters require confidentiality. The Local Government Act provides for closed sessions in defined circumstances. That same discipline can be applied to briefings, protecting what must be protected, while opening what can and should be open.

This is not about theatre. It is about reducing the information cost borne by the public. When residents can see the same explanations councillors receive, they can judge decisions more fairly. They can separate a genuine difference of view from a misunderstanding. They can participate with greater confidence in civic life.

That is why I chose not to attempt to institute this change through a mayoral minute alone. I tabled a Notice of Motion so the chamber can debate it openly, and so any resolution carries the legitimacy of collective decision.

Countering Misinformation with Light

Misinformation flourishes where attention is scarce and trust is fragile. It can be unintentional, but it can also be weaponised, particularly during election campaigns. Local government has fewer resources than state or federal institutions, yet our duty to protect public trust is no less serious.

Transparency is one of the strongest antidotes. Clear records, accessible meetings, timely correction of the record, and plain language explanations all help residents make informed judgments.

I have asked the General Manager to ensure vigilance and a comprehensive approach to counter misinformation. The aim is not confrontation. The aim is civic health. A community that can see clearly is a community that can disagree respectfully, decide wisely, and move forward together.

Reflection

I have always believed that trust is built slowly, and lost quickly. Transparency and accountability are how we protect that trust in a complex system that can otherwise obscure responsibility. If we can make our processes more visible, our explanations more accessible, and our records more reliable, we strengthen the democratic bond between council and community. That is not an optional extra. It is the work.

Read the original Mayoral Minute here:  21.  Local Government -Transparency and Accountability