The Real Winners of the Council League Table
July 2024
Printed in: The Fifth Estate
Last week’s launch of the Minns Government’s council league table – where councils are ranked on their efficiency in approving development applications – is yet another example of the divide-and-conquer tactics and bare-knuckled politics being utilised in Sydney’s housing affordability debate.
Rather than investing valuable resources to collaborate with councils in order to identify the top problems and work out the best ways to fix them – the government has instead invested those resources in building a mechanic that names and shames councils, pitting them against each other.
Far from addressing the fundamental issues that need tackling, this new tool exploits flaws in the approval processes by amplifying them for political gain. By creating this mechanic, the government can now be the “policeman” of inefficient councils – further consolidating in the public’s mindset where partial blame for this crisis lies.
This is realpolitik in all its glory. Big political agendas – like the one needed to improve housing affordability – carry big political risk. Such undertakings can be politically fatal if things go awry. So, having a scapegoat to distract the public with is always necessary. The Minns Government identified local councils very early on to play this role.
The demonisation of Sydney’s local councils has effectively been weaponised by the current government in order to protect itself. Painted remorselessly as the problem child in the room – the troublesome, recalcitrant councils are proving an exceptional red herring for the Premier. It’s a game of “don’t blame us, blame them.”
Such manoeuvring has now been officially formalised via this new whizz bang tool – the government’s council league table. This snazzy instrument now allows the government to call out any trouble makers whenever it likes. It also allows them to irresponsibly perpetuate the myth that if anyone is culpable, its local councils and their laggardness.
Undoubtedly though, such tactics come coupled with longer-term consequences and latent karma. While some of us commenting on the housing affordability debate can take the government’s narrative with a grain of salt and peer at it with some healthy perspective – many Sydneysiders will simply swallow such messaging at face value.
So, ongoing efforts to smear the broader local council brand (rather than help repair it) only further damage and white-ant public trust in this important institution. Such tactics will also undermine that key social contract between a local council and its community long after this government is gone.
After all, alongside their flaws, local councils play an essential role in ensuring local villages stay true to the values locals love about them. Councils understand the culture and personality of their villages better than other levels of government. They strategically plan around place and character. They value heritage and story. They also provide a regular forum for locals to air and ideally resolve their differences.
However, for all of the strong and often genuinely inspiring talent Sydney’s local council network attracts – the reality is that these institutions are being railroaded by the Minns Government.
Of course, such sharp-elbowed politics comes with its own set of risks. Longevity in politics requires an accumulation of support across a rippling, interdependent set of concentric networks. The government’s bulldoze approach, however, will create enemies. What is not said in public will be said in private. Such conversations ripple out, serving only to weaken rather than strengthen.
And whatsmore – council inefficiencies are only half of this story. The missing half is the fact that once many development applications are approved, developers are often sitting on them and land banking. Sydney’s LGAs have literally thousands of approved dwellings that developers refuse to begin construction on until financial conditions (i.e. profitability) improves.
But the government conveniently omits this part of the story out of its narrative. Surely, the amount of approved dwellings not being built or even a “landing-banking ranking” of developers would only bolster such a tool and square its ledger? Yet even with all of the ready-to-hand data, it is not a feature in the government’s new league table.
The government’s consistent refusal to discuss this chunk of the challenge is one of the more fascinating parts of the entire housing affordability debate. A careful, even protective approach when it comes to the developer lobby brand – whilst at the same time throwing local councils under the bus. A more even-handed balance is needed.
From the sidelines as a punter, so far it has been an astounding story to follow. The potent whiff of the rollocking school-yard tactics employed in this debate have been disappointing to watch. As has seeing the former might of Sydney’s local councils being voluntarily steamrolled by a narrative that treats them like disobedient children.
Without sounding too much like someone preaching from a pulpit – Sydney deserves better than this. We elect (and pay, mind you) these decision makers to work together to solve problems – not to finger point and amplify them for their own gain. One year into this debate, we still have little clarity on a strategic vision but still bucketloads of mud. We must do better.
