I don’t have time for a detailed post about Matthew Guy’s extraordinary decision to tell DPCD to change its advice to him about the Ventnor rezoning. But then, who needs one? Thanks to the good work of the opposition and The Age, the facts are now out in the open, and they speak for themselves. You wonder why he couldn’t just disregard the advice, rather than seeking for it to be changed… But then this kind of stuff, like Madden’s Windsor debacle before it, defies explanation. As I said then, good governance would actually be the canny political strategy in these instances.
I did, however, want to make one quick point about Guy’s conduct here that I haven’t seen made anywhere else, and that’s the contrast between the approach of the state government versus local government in a situation such as this. At state government level, the Minister can direct the Department to change its advice and top bureaucrats will acquiesce. In considering how bad a piece of behaviour that is by the Minister, it is worth considering that if he had been a councillor in local government, his request would have been not just poor governance, but actually illegal.
Section 76(E)(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 provides that:
A Councillor must not direct, or seek to direct, a member of Council staff—
…(d) in relation to advice provided to the Council or a special committee, including advice in a report to the Council or special committee.
So under the rules laid down by the state government for local government, councillors can’t request recommendations of the administration be changed. They must overrule them and stand accountable for their decision (and frequently they do). Yet state government Ministers themselves can’t abide by that same basic discipline.
It’s pretty shameless hypocrisy.