Close Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Sport
  • Entertainment
  • Local Lives & Landmarks
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise With Us
  • About Us
  • Subscribe
  • Read Our Newspapers Online
    • Read the Latest Western Port News
    • Read the Latest Mornington News
    • Read the Latest Southern Peninsula News
    • Read the Latest Frankston Times
    • Read the Latest Chelsea Mordialloc Mentone News
  • Competition
  • Home New
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Monday, May 11
Facebook X (Twitter)
MPNEWSMPNEWS
  • Home
  • News
  • Sport
  • Entertainment
  • Local Lives & Landmarks
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise With Us
  • About Us
  • Subscribe
Breaking News
MPNEWSMPNEWS
Home»Council Watch»Fraser returns with rules feedback
Council Watch

Fraser returns with rules feedback

By Keith PlattJuly 12, 2021Updated:July 13, 2021No Comments3 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Reddit Threads Email Copy Link
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

UNDEMOCRATIC, manifestly inadequate, vague, ambiguous and absurdly long [time for lodging notices of motion] are just some of the words by former councillor Hugh Fraser to describe proposed changes to rules under which Mornington Peninsula Shire operates.

Mr Fraser’s detailed critique of parts of the draft Governance Rules is made in one of the submissions now being collated by shire officers.

Councillors will be briefed on the feedback from the public to the proposed changes on 3 August, and the Governance Rules will then be listed for discussion at the council’s 24 August public meeting.

Mr Fraser’s main objections to the proposed changes are centred around the powers of the chief executive officer, including the CEO’s ability to rule on what items are confidential, accept notices of motion and correct “factual errors” raised during meetings.

Mr Fraser resigned as a Nepean ward councillor in March, just four months after being elected for the third successive time (“Fraser bows out after “differences” with CEO” The News 15/3/21).

However, Mr Fraser also aims some of his scathing criticism to a proposal to replace the council prayer, traditionally spoken before a council meeting, with a pledge.   

When calling for feedback about the Governance Rules in May, the shire said that “in particular council seeks your input in relation to the prayer”.

Cr Anthony Marsh was supported by a majority of councillors last December in having the wording of the council prayer replaced by a pledge, although it was still listed as a prayer on subsequent council meeting agendas (“God purged from council prayer” The News 14/12/20).

The shire’s in-house lawyer, governance director Amanda Sapolu, advised council that the wording could be changed provided it was still labelled as a prayer.

Mr Fraser, a barrister, disagreed at the time and wants the traditional prayer retained, “not words of a civil pledge masquerading under the heading of prayer”.

“The civil pledge adds nothing to councillors’ statutory and sworn duties and introduces a needless ambiguity,” Mr Fraser said.

“The prayer … with words of prayer, is consistent with over 3000 years of Judeo -Christian tradition that underpins Australian politics, law and morals, is referred to in the Australian Constitution and a prayer it is said at the commencement of daily sittings of federal and state houses of parliament.

“If local government truly considers itself as a third tier of government in Australia, local council deliberations ought consistently to do so and remind councillors of their humanity and humility as democratic representatives of the community.”

When calling for public comment on the proposed changes to its Governance Rules, the shire said it was “committed to working with the community to improve public confidence in the decisions it makes and to ensure decisions reflect the best interests of all sections of our community”.

Mr Fraser said “the only window” for designating information as confidential should be in accord with the Local Government Act.

He said requiring councillors to lodge notices of motion two weeks before a council meeting was “absurdly long” and a requirement for a rescission motion or revocation motion to be signed by two councillors (including one who had previously supported the resolution) was “undemocratically wide”.

“[This] undermines this principle and is an undemocratic process contrary to all principle and the individual responsibility of each councillor.”

First published in the Southern Peninsula News – 13 July 2021

Related Posts

Ratepayers foot the bill for public waste costs

April 20, 2026

Shire reforecasts budget after $8.2m shortfall

April 9, 2026

Marsh takes leave from council duties

February 25, 2026

Council to consider rate relief for landslide homes

December 23, 2025
Add A Comment

Comments are closed.

Peninsula Essence Magazine – Click to Read
Peninsula Kids Magazine – Click to Read
Letters to the Editor
Property of the Week

47A Strachans Road, Mornington

Property Of The Week January 27, 2026
Council Watch

Ratepayers foot the bill for public waste costs

April 20, 2026

Shire reforecasts budget after $8.2m shortfall

April 9, 2026
100 Years Ago This Week

Mornington Racing Club – Many improvements planned

May 7, 2026
Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Sport
  • Entertainment
  • Local Lives & Landmarks
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise With Us
  • About Us
  • Subscribe
About

Established in 2006, Mornington Peninsula News Group (MPNG) is a locally owned and operated, independent media company.

MPNG publishes five weekly community newspapers: the Western Port News, Mornington News, Southern Peninsula News, Frankston Times and Chelsea Mordialloc Mentone News.

MPNG also publishes two glossy magazines: Peninsula Essence and Peninsula Kids.

Facebook X (Twitter)
© 2026 Mornington Peninsula News Group.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.