At a heated Mornington Shire Council meeting on Tuesday night in Rosebud, the newly elected council handed down its first budget — a document that reallocated funds away from arts, climate action, Indigenous affairs and internal staffing, in favour of broader community spending. But while the budget itself marked a policy shift, it was the tone of the meeting that left many observers questioning the state of governance within the shire.
What emerged over the course of the evening was not just policy disagreement, but evidence of a sharply divided council, operating as two distinct factions. Allegations of exclusion, poor communication and ethical concerns now hang over the council, raising questions about representation, transparency and leadership.
A Shift in Spending Priorities
The 2024–25 budget, passed by the new council, includes $5 million in cuts to employee costs and a redirection of funding previously allocated to arts programs, climate-related grants and Indigenous affairs. According to Deputy Mayor Paul Pingiaro, the changes reflect the council’s need to “support broader community recipients” in the face of challenging economic conditions.
But the process leading up to the budget’s adoption — and the debate within the chamber — revealed more than fiscal realignment. It laid bare a widening gulf between councillors, marked by procedural frustrations and open hostility.
Caucusing Allegations and Exclusion Concerns
Behind the scenes, it is understood that the council has effectively split into two voting blocs: Block A, with six councillors, and Block B, with five. Multiple sources allege that the six-member bloc has been caucusing privately — refusing to communicate with the other five councillors, providing no advance notice of motions or amendments, and excluding them from decision-making discussions.
While caucusing is not illegal in local government, critics say it undermines representative democracy. If five councillors are being sidelined, residents in their wards risk being left without a genuine voice in council deliberations.
“This isn’t just poor governance,” one observer told STPL News. “It’s a denial of representation for entire communities.”
Clashes in the Chamber: Sarcasm and Shut-Downs
The growing divisions were evident during a fiery exchange between Cr David Gill and Mayor Anthony Marsh regarding climate change. Gill, known for his support of climate action, used sarcasm to highlight the contradiction in council documentation that referenced climate considerations, despite the earlier dismantling of the shire’s climate emergency plan.
“So one of the reasons for the sewage reticulation is because of climate change,” Gill said, before adding, “Why is that still in there — as we don’t believe in climate change in this council?”
Mayor Marsh was quick to interject:
“Council has not made any declaration to that substance. And if you keep bringing that up…”
“I’ll keep bringing it up,” Gill replied, prompting Marsh to respond, “Yeah well, you can keep trying that and I’ll keep shutting you down.”
The exchange, brief but pointed, reflected a broader breakdown in civility and communication between councillors — and a frustration from those in the minority bloc who feel their concerns are being dismissed outright.
Defamation Claims and Rising Hostility
Later in the meeting, Cr Gill again drew attention to what he called a “mockery” of process, accusing fellow councillors of bringing forward “trumped up” changes without real investigation. His comments sparked a point of order from Cr Paul Pingiaro, who accused Gill of bordering on defamation.
“I’ve had two weeks of that and I won’t tolerate any more,” Pingiaro said.
Mayor Marsh attempted to maintain order. Gill was asked to stop speaking while the point of order was considered — further fuelling the perception that councillors in the minority bloc are being silenced.
Last-Minute Motions and Lack of Consultation
Concerns over transparency were echoed by Cr Max Patton, who criticised the late submission of a significant motion the night before the meeting — a motion that sought to abandon key funding and restructure programs.
“There’s been no Councillor collaboration about that. And more importantly, there’s been no consultation,” Patton said.
Once again, Cr Pingiaro interjected with a point of order, accusing Patton of irrelevance and personal attacks. The mayor acknowledged that all councillors are entitled to move motions, but the incident underscored growing tensions around transparency and inclusion in council processes.
Residents Left in the Dark
With one bloc dominating decision-making and others alleging exclusion, concerns are mounting about how effectively the council can govern.
If residents in five wards are being represented by councillors who have been silenced, the question arises: is the council acting in the best interests of all Mornington Shire residents — or only those aligned with the majority bloc?
They are all a bunch of misfits mostly with woke ideas. Climate change is a real myth. Wasted taxpayers money. There are better and more important things to spend money on, like health, and infrastructure
Some yes but not all Paul Pingiaro is genuine
The Council should not be spending ratepayers money on climate change. That is a national issue. Ratepayers money should be for Councils basic reason for being not woke and questionable actions.
Totally agree with the new budget it’s getting priorities in order well done Paul
Curios to know exactly what the climate funds were used for?
The previous councillors blamed climate change for the destruction of shire Hall Beach and did NOTHING
At a heated Mornington Shire Council meeting on Tuesday night in Rosebud, the newly elected council handed down its first budget — a document that reallocated funds away from arts, climate action, Indigenous affairs and internal staffing, in favour of broader community spending. But while the budget itself marked a policy shift, it was the tone of the meeting that left many observers questioning the state of governance within the shire. What emerged throughout the evening was not just policy disagreement, but evidence of a sharply divided council, operating as two distinct factions. Allegations of exclusion, poor communication and ethical concerns now hang over the council, raising questions about representation, transparency and leadership.
It sounds like very poor process – a lack of community consultation, a deliberate attempt to shut down the minority group of councillors and therefore a lack of representation of the 5 wards whose councillors are being undermined
The way I read it is that a more responsible effort is being critisised , priorities should and have been addressed
This exclusion and lack of communication regarding proposals and meetings occurred almost a year ago. Some were left in the dark and unaware that secret meetings were taking place. Get your act together and show some unity and find common ground to promote the peninsula, not to get your own ideals passed minus interference.
Are transparency, communication and thoughtful collaboration too much to ask of a local council’s leadership? Pretty interesting show being run by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor… Caucasing at this level feels childish and bleak. Fingers crossed those two can display a semblance of leadership before the end of their term.
The election platform for the majority of councillors was to put more emphasis on local needs and issues which is exactly what this motion does. The minority may not agree inc some existing councillors but a democratic vote makes the final decision.
Stop acting like children and do the job we are paying you for .. seriously I’m disgusted to read this , grow up the lot of you !!!!
Rate money should be spent responsibly with the most community benefits and that is the agenda being pursued that is their job and good on them for not wasting our money