FairGo Policy
Restoring Impartiality andFree Speech inLocal Government
Introduction
To properly understand the dysfunction created by the current behavioural management framework in South Australian local government, it is instructive to consider a typical example.
Let’s say a council passes a significant increase in rates. One councillor, believing the increase to be unjustified, speaks out publicly. That councillor may argue that the administration is wasting money, that the Mayor has failed to exercise restraint, and that the council majority has disregarded community expectations.
In a democratic system, this intervention ought to be welcomed as an act of representation. To many residents, the councillor is improving confidence in local government by speaking candidly and challenging excess. However, under the current code, the same conduct can be recast as "bringing the council into disrepute" or "failing to maintain working relationships." A complaint is lodged, often by a member of the majority bloc, alleging that the councillor has diminished confidence in the body.
Usually the complaint would be made by a councillor who voted for the rate increase which was supported by the Mayor. The Mayor already has a vested interest in the complaint proceeding.
The Mayor, empowered under the current framework, declines to dismiss the complaint as trivial, because there is no statutory threshold for triviality. Instead, the matter is referred to external investigators, typically lawyers retained by the council at significant cost to the ratepayer. The investigator, engaged through the Mayor, is not independent of council politics and has every incentive to find fault. The Mayor instructs the "investigator" that the complaint is not trivial and that a breach of the code may well be found. The matter drags on for months, often years, with escalating hostility between the complainant and the subject of the complaint. One believing the complaint is trivial and should not progress and the other angry that an outcome has not been reached sooner. When the matter eventually returns to council, the majority votes to censure or otherwise sanction the dissenting councillor. That councillor, already isolated, must declare a conflict of interest in relation to the matter and leave the chamber, effectively silencing opposition to the majority view.
By this stage the damage is irreparable. The councillor who spoke out has been punished and publicly admonished, the majority has exercised power against a minority, the ratepayers have paid large sums for legal process, and, most significantly, the working relationships within the council chamber have collapsed beyond repair. The bitterness and resentment generated by such processes linger for the rest of the term, entrenching dysfunction and paralysing the capacity of council to govern effectively.
This is not a theoretical risk. It is the lived reality of many South Australian councils, documented in investigative reports and newspaper coverage of councils such as the City of Adelaide, Burnside, Mount Barker, and the Adelaide Hills.
The Problem
The underlying problem is structural. The current behavioral framework in South Australian local government was introduced with the stated aim of curbing bullying and harassment. However, it has created a process that is vague, open to manipulation, and punitive in its operation. In short, it benefits a majority faction on council and can be weaponized against individuals who are in dissent from the majority view.
- Vague Standards
The current code obliges councillors to "maintain working relationships" and to avoid bringing council "into disrepute." These terms are undefined and incapable of precise application. Whether a statement improves or diminishes reputation is inherently subjective. Whether colleagues maintain a "working relationship" is equally incapable of legal definition. Councillors are not required to be friends, nor to agree; they are required only to sit in the same chamber and transact public business. - Absence of a Triviality Threshold
Unlike most legal or quasi-legal frameworks, there is no statutory minimum threshold to filter out trivial, frivolous, or vexatious complaints. Matters as inconsequential as receiving a text message during a meeting have been elevated to formal investigations. - Control by Mayors and Majorities
Under current policies, the Mayor or Deputy Mayor is designated as the "Person Responsible for Managing the Complaint". This ensures that complaints are processed by political actors, often aligned with factions. Majority blocs can therefore exercise control over complaint processes, ensuring that dissenting minority councillors are subjected to sanction. This has been observed in practice across multiple councils, including the City of Adelaide, which has been labelled "dysfunctional, frustrating and aggressive" in independent reports. - Legalisation and Cost
Complaints are commonly outsourced to external lawyers at significant cost to ratepayers. Investigators are engaged by the Mayor and report back through council structures, giving rise to a perception, if not the reality, of partiality. Because lawyers are remunerated for prolonged investigations, there is an inherent financial incentive to sustain and escalate complaints. - Entrenchment of Hostility
Once a complaint is lodged, the identity of the complainant is often obvious to the subject councillor, despite attempts at confidentiality. This creates bitterness that cannot be repaired. By the time the matter is resolved, trust between councillors has been destroyed. Councils then spend the balance of their terms locked in factional feuds.
The Solution
FairGo proposes a wholesale reform of the behavioural complaints system to restore impartiality, protect free speech, and prevent trivial matters from escalating into years of hostility.
- Independent Intake
All complaints should be lodged through an independent external intake body, appointed by the Local Government Association or an equivalent state-level authority. Neither the Mayor nor any councillor should have control over the receipt or assessment of complaints. The complaint will be assessed anonymously in the first instance with identifiers removed. - Triviality Test
The intake body must apply a statutory test of triviality. Complaints that are minor, vexatious, or lacking in substance must be dismissed at the outset. The complained behavior must be a clear detriment to the community, not just a technical breach with no real impact. Clear examples include: use of a mobile phone in chambers, criticism of council policy, or interpersonal dislike. Only matters that amount to bullying, harassment, unlawful discrimination, or serious breaches of meeting procedure should be entertained. Breaches of the Local Government Act should be assessed, a recommendation formed, and a report prepared before referring the matter to the Ombudsman. - Mediation First
Where a complaint survives initial screening, the first and mandatory step must be mediation by a qualified, independent mediator. The focus should be on repairing working relationships, not punishment. The majority of matters should end at this stage with private resolution. Mediation plays an invaluable step in our judicial system; parties who are often committed to going to court at all costs in the vast majority of cases settle the matter before proceeding to court. The vast majority of complaint issues can be resolved before wasting council resources. - Confidential Resolution of Isolated Breaches
Where a complaint is upheld at mediation or investigation, the outcome should be dealt with confidentially. Private apology, counselling, or training may be appropriate. Only repeated or serious breaches should justify escalation to public sanction. - Objective Standard of Assessment
Behaviour must be assessed against the objective standard of a reasonable person, not the subjective perception of the complainant. Councillors must be free to criticise budgets, policies, and leadership without fear of complaint. The standard of conduct should be consistent with state and federal parliaments, where vigorous debate and criticism are inherent in the role. - Independent Determination of Sanctions
If a councillor engages in repeated or serious misbehaviour, sanctions should be determined by an independent panel, not by votes of council majorities. This prevents factions from using complaint processes to eliminate minority voices. Sanctions may include censure, removal from committee positions, or mandatory training. Breaches of the Code or Local Government Act may immediately attract sanctions if the breach is of a serious enough nature. - Impartial Chairing of Meetings
Mayors must be required to chair meetings impartially. The role of the presiding member is to facilitate debate, not to favour factional allies. Councillors must not be interrupted when expressing policy views, even if others disagree and even if there are factual errors in the debate. Debate is the essence of democracy; interruption and silencing are forms of bullying. The right to speak and debate points, even the right to be mistaken, will be allowed and interruption by the Mayor or meeting whilst a person is speaking will not be permitted. Only points of order that relate to the meeting procedures should be allowed, not complaints of a breach of the behavioral code. - Cultural Renewal
Councils should be required to engage in annual culture-building workshops facilitated by independent experts. Councillors need not be friends; they must only be capable of working respectfully in the same room. The goal is functional coexistence, not enforced harmony. When communication breaks down between councillors, it can remain that way for years. Team-building exercises should be held to break down barriers, encourage councillors to work together, and work towards shared outcomes. - Establishment of an Internal Legal Service
To further reduce the excessive costs currently borne by councils in the resolution of behavioural complaints, an internal pool of legal advisors shall be established and funded by contributions from all councils. This service will operate as a shared resource across the sector and will provide legal support for the assessment and resolution of complaints under the Behavioural Standards. The use of this internal service will ensure that matters are managed in a consistent, timely, and cost-effective manner. At present, councils routinely retain external law firms to investigate trivial complaints, often at partner rates in excess of $500 per hour. It is wholly disproportionate for ratepayers to fund such expenditure in order to resolve disputes of minimal significance such as disagreements about the conduct of councillors at community events or minor exchanges during meetings. By contrast, a shared internal service will deliver high-quality legal advice at a fraction of the cost, eliminating the perception that private firms have a financial incentive to prolong investigations. This reform will return complaint management to a scale appropriate for local government and prevent ratepayer resources from being wasted on trivial matters.
Why This Works
This framework will end the escalating cycle of complaints, hostility, and dysfunction that has plagued South Australian councils for more than a decade.
- Prevention of Escalation: By screening out trivial matters and mandating mediation, the vast majority of complaints will never escalate into costly investigations or public feuds. Matters such as phone use or tone of voice will be dismissed early, protecting councillors from spurious claims and ratepayers from waste.
- Protection of Free Speech: Councillors will be able to criticise policy, budgets, and leadership without fear of weaponised complaints. Public confidence will be strengthened when dissenting voices are heard and respected rather than silenced.
- Impartiality: By removing mayors and councillors from complaint management, impartiality is restored. Independent bodies, not political factions, will determine whether complaints proceed.
- Cost Reduction: Mandatory mediation and early dismissal of trivial complaints will dramatically reduce legal expenditure. Ratepayers will not be forced to fund external lawyers to investigate petty disputes.
- Repair of Working Relationships: By keeping outcomes confidential at first instance, councils can avoid public humiliation of councillors and instead focus on reconciliation. Only repeated misconduct will trigger public sanction. This prevents bitterness from hardening after minor disputes.
- Consistency with Higher Levels of Government: Applying the same standard of free speech as state and federal parliaments recognises that local government is also a democratic forum. Councillors, like MPs, must be free to speak candidly and robustly.
- Reduction of Dysfunction: By neutralising factional use of the complaints process, councils will be better able to focus on governance. Ratepayers will no longer witness chambers consumed by personal vendettas and endless complaints.
Expected Outcomes
The current behavioural management framework in South Australian local government has failed. It has created councils that are paralysed by complaint, consumed by hostility, and stripped of public confidence. The rules are vague, easily manipulated, and enforced by political majorities against minorities. The result is escalating dysfunction and enduring bitterness that cannot be repaired within a term of office.
FairGo proposes a new model. It is grounded in independence, impartiality, and free speech. It protects councillors who speak for their communities, prevents trivial complaints from escalating, and focuses on repairing relationships rather than punishing dissent.
This policy will reduce costs, rebuild trust, and restore the dignity of local government as a democratic forum. It will ensure that councils once again function as places of robust debate, honest disagreement, and effective governance, rather than as battlegrounds of personal grievance.