Frankston City Council’s 2026/2027 Budget has passed after a disputed meeting in which Cr Nathan Butler says he was not afforded the opportunity to move an alternate motion aimed at exploring targeted cost-of-living relief for residents.
The proposed alternate motion, later released publicly by Cr Butler, called for further work before final budget adoption.
It included a potential principal place of residence rates discount, a 30 per cent Meals on Wheels discount, a two-week community survey, and a report on savings and efficiencies to fund the proposal.
The dispute occurred during debate on item 12.4, the adoption of the budget.
The publicly available video of the meeting records Cr Butler attempting to move an alternate motion at the start of debate, saying he would like to move “an alternate” through the Mayor.
Mayor Cr Sue Baker then proceeded to call for the officer recommendation, which was moved by Cr O’Reilly and seconded by Cr Hill.
Cr Kris Bolam immediately raised a point of order, later arguing Cr Butler had “got in first” and should have been recognised first.
Mayor Baker said that was “not from where I was sitting”, before the meeting was adjourned to review the issue.
Butler Speaks Against Budget
Cr Butler later spoke against the budget, saying he did not believe it met the financial pressures facing Frankston residents.
I do not support this budget. I do not think it meets the moment that we’re at.
Cr Butler told the chamber that consultation had occurred months earlier and argued locals were continuing to face cost-of-living pressure.
Residents of Frankston continue to get squeezed.
He said he had intended to move an alternate motion seeking a report and further community consultation on potential rate relief for principal place of residence owners.
I’m disappointed that that was not able to be tabled and debated.
Cr Butler said he believed the budget was being adopted too early.
We still have seven weeks left before we need to pass this budget. And I think it’s premature to do so now.
In a statement provided to STPL News, Cr Butler said he was deeply disappointed the proposal was not debated.
I’m deeply disappointed that I was not afforded the opportunity to move my alternate motion during the budget meeting process.
The Chair had been provided with an advance copy of the alternate motion prior to the meeting, and I believe was aware of my intention to move it.
I believed the proposal deserved to be debated, particularly given it focused on targeted cost of living relief for residents while still protecting frontline services, vulnerable community members and community grants.
Ultimately, Council made its decision, but I also believe transparency is important, which is why I’ve chosen to publicly release the alternate motion the community did not get the opportunity to hear debated.
Dissent Motion Lost
When the meeting resumed at 9.51pm, Mayor Baker said she refused to accept Cr Bolam’s first point of order because she had discretion over how to move a motion.
Cr Bolam then moved a motion of dissent against the Mayor.
Cr Bolam alleged Mayor Baker had “wilfully ignored” Cr Butler and argued the video recording showed Cr Butler “got in first”.
Mayor Baker rejected that characterisation, saying she had been making a statement about the budget process before calling for a mover of the officer recommendation.
I was making a statement about the budget process that we’ve gone through over the last six, seven months, which detailed the work that we’ve doing and that what I wanted to call for was a mover for the officer’s recommendation.
The motion of dissent was lost.
The transcript records Cr Butler and Cr Bolam voting in favour, and Cr Green, Cr Asker, Cr Hill, Cr O’Reilly, Cr Baker and Cr Conroy voting against.
Bolam Opposes Budget
Cr Bolam also spoke against the budget, telling the chamber it was the first time in his 13 years on Council that he had opposed one.
I have never once stood to oppose a budget and I’m sad to say that tonight that streak ends.
Cr Bolam said the budget was “not just a collection of numbers” but a reflection of values, and argued those values were “completely out of alignment with the reality of the people we serve”.
He pointed to what he described as a $6.9 million underlying deficit, debt “nearly doubling to over $60 million in three years”, and a proposed 4 per cent rate increase.
Cr Bolam also criticised the budget process, saying councillors had spent “roughly five hours” deliberating on a $304 million budget.
He said Cr Butler’s attempted alternate motion was aimed at bringing decision-making back into the chamber.
What Councillor Butler was trying to do was right a wrong by stopping the sidestepping and bringing the decision power back to where it belongs, which is in this chamber.
Cr Bolam also raised concerns about councillors not being given access to more than 700 operational line items, which he said represented about 75 per cent of the overall budget.
Mayor Baker raised a point of order over the comment.
The Deputy Mayor did not uphold the point of order, confirming those specific line items had not been provided to the group.
Cr Bolam said the refusal to provide those details had affected the budget process.
The refusal to let us not see what is under the hood has, in my view, contaminated this process.
He said Cr Butler’s proposal would have provided relief through a principal place of residence rebate and a Meals on Wheels discount, while also committing the budget to further community consultation before sign-off.
Budget Process Defended
Cr O’Reilly, who moved the officer recommendation, said the budget was one of the most difficult tasks Council dealt with and involved balancing competing views on how public money should be spent.
He said councillors had held briefings, discussions and online votes before arriving at the officer recommendation, and said he had been “relatively happy” with how the budget process had concluded.
Council’s chief executive Tennille Bradley also defended the broader process, saying councillors had worked with officers for at least five months and that community feedback had been integrated into preparation of the budget.
We took the feedback on board and built it into the budget.
The CEO said six briefing sessions had been held with eight councillors present, and that officers had sought to engage Cr Bolam through briefing documents.
She said she was open to reports being brought back into the chamber for discussion and debate, but warned against making budget decisions without full information.
What I’m not prepared to do as the CEO, though, is do policy on the fly and implement decisions that we don’t have the full information at our discretion.
The debate exposed a wider split over both the budget itself and the process used to prepare it, with Cr Butler and Cr Bolam arguing for further work on cost-of-living relief, while Mayor Baker and the CEO defended the handling of the budget process.
