A contentious proposal from the Queensland state government to significantly increase the powers of mayors has exposed a deep division among the state's local councils. The plan, which would allow mayors to unilaterally hire and fire chief executive officers, is meeting fierce resistance from some quarters while gaining cautious support from others.
The Core of the Controversial Proposal
The suggested changes, currently under review as part of a broader overhaul of the Local Government Act 2009, aim to centralise more authority in the office of the mayor. The most explosive element is the proposition to shift the power to appoint and dismiss the council's CEO solely to the mayor, removing this responsibility from the full council.
This would represent a fundamental shift from the current model, where the CEO is employed by the council as a whole. Proponents, including Local Government Minister Steven Miles, argue it would enhance accountability and streamline decision-making, ensuring the mayor has the necessary tools to deliver on their electoral mandate.
However, critics warn it risks creating an unhealthy concentration of power, potentially leading to a 'presidential' style of local government where the CEO's loyalty is to one individual rather than the elected body. This, they fear, could undermine good governance and collaborative council operations.
A Council Landscape Sharply Divided
The response from Queensland's 77 local governments has been far from unanimous, revealing a clear and passionate split.
The Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) has voiced strong opposition. LGAQ CEO Alison Smith has labelled the idea a "retrograde step" that could damage the relationship between councillors and the administration. The association contends that the current system provides crucial checks and balances.
In contrast, the Council of Mayors (SEQ), representing southeast Queensland, has provided in-principle support. Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner has stated that giving mayors more direct responsibility for the CEO's performance aligns with the expectations of voters who hold the mayor ultimately accountable for the council's delivery.
This divide is also playing out at the individual council level. For instance, Townsville City Council has reportedly expressed support for exploring the changes, seeing potential benefits for administrative efficiency. Meanwhile, other regional and rural councils are deeply concerned about the implications for smaller councils and the potential for increased factional politics.
Broader Reforms and the Path Forward
The debate over mayoral powers is part of a larger suite of potential reforms being considered by the state government. These include reviewing council composition, electoral processes, and governance standards. The government has emphasised that no final decisions have been made and that feedback from the consultation process, which runs until July 19, 2024, will be crucial.
The starkly different positions held by key stakeholder groups like the LGAQ and the Council of Mayors (SEQ) present a significant challenge for the government. It must navigate these conflicting views to design a reform package that strengthens local government without eroding its democratic foundations.
The outcome of this consultation will shape the structure of Queensland's local democracy for years to come. The core question remains: does enhancing the power of a single elected figure improve accountability and efficiency, or does it pose an unacceptable risk to collaborative and transparent local governance? The answer continues to split councils across the state.
