Gill’s Transparency Motion Voted Down with Mayor Marsh Absent for Meeting

Push for Greater Accountability

Cr David Gill put forward a motion to tighten the Council’s Governance Rules in the name of transparency, scrutiny and fairness. His proposal aimed to ensure all councillors could ask officers legitimate policy questions during meetings, that the Chair be required to record a reason when rejecting questions, and that councillors retain the right to move dissent against a Chair’s ruling. It also sought a two-thirds majority to end debate early and clearer definitions around what kinds of motions the Chair can reject.

Gill said the changes were about restoring confidence and openness, not targeting anyone personally.

“It’s common sense that a democratically elected chamber should ensure all councillors have the right to ask questions,” he said.

“This isn’t about denigrating anyone — it’s about improving the way we do business.”

The Debate

Deputy Mayor Paul Pingiaro chaired the meeting in the absence of Mayor Anthony Marsh. The debate was civil but clearly divided, with councillors split on whether Gill’s motion would improve or complicate governance.

Cr Bruce Ranken opposed the changes, saying democracy relies on “one councillor, one vote,” and warning that Gill’s proposals could shift power away from the majority.

“Democracy isn’t about changing the rules because you don’t like the outcome,” Ranken said.

“Supermajority gimmicks and carve-outs would sideline the elected majority.”

Ranken argued that the Local Government Act already provides clear decision-making processes and that introducing a two-thirds threshold could undermine the Chair’s authority. He said the Council should instead wait for the State Government’s model governance rules, which are currently being finalised, before considering any local amendments.

Support From Patten and Stephens

Cr Max Patten spoke in support of Gill’s motion, saying it addressed longstanding issues that have affected councillor participation this term.

“There are clear issues with the governance rules,” Patten said.

“Some terms are too open to interpretation, and that depends too much on good faith from whoever’s in the chair.”

Patten said the current rules are unclear on dissent motions and criticised the introduction of unofficial deadlines for councillor questions, which he said aren’t part of the adopted rules.

Cr Michael Stephens also supported the motion, saying councillors should be able to represent their communities without procedural restrictions that limit discussion or scrutiny.

The Vote

The motion was defeated 5–4.
In favour: Crs Gill, Patten, Stephens and Binyon.
Against: Crs Allen, Williams, Ranken, Batty and Pingiaro.
Absent: Mayor Marsh.

Closing debate, Gill said council meetings should be open, fair and accountable.

“The Chair is not the majority,” he said. “The Chair interprets the rules — but the majority should have a voice when they disagree.”

What’s Next

With the motion lost, no immediate review will proceed. Council is expected to revisit its Governance Rules once the Victorian Government releases the model framework later this year.

The result again highlighted the divide within the chamber, particularly between councillors seeking stronger transparency measures and those favouring the current structure — a dynamic likely to shape the upcoming mayoral election, with Deputy Mayor Pingiaro seen as the likely successor to Marsh.