A Mornington Peninsula Shire councillor has openly acknowledged that a council motion which triggered a dramatic walkout in September was used as a political weapon against a fellow councillor, sharpening scrutiny of council culture, leadership and internal factionalism at the Shire.
In an interview with STPL News, Cr Cam Williams said the councillor term-limits motion was not a serious attempt at governance reform, but a deliberate move aimed at long-serving councillor David Gill.
“It was literally just to have a dig at Gill.”
The admission goes to the heart of long-standing concerns raised by residents about bloc voting, internal power struggles and whether council processes are being used to advance governance or to target individuals and political rivals.
A post shared, questions raised
The interview followed Cr Williams sharing a Council Watch Victoria opinion post on his official councillor Facebook page. The post criticised arbitration costs and internal disputes at Mornington Peninsula Shire Council and featured a caricature of 5 councillors alongside strongly worded claims about political vendettas and misuse of ratepayer funds.
By sharing the post, Williams was effectively giving his public endorsement of the post which has prompted questions about judgment, leadership and whether internal disputes were being escalated rather than resolved.
Multiple people contacted STPL News questioning why a councillor would publicly amplify commentary attacking fellow councillors. STPL News attempted to contact Cr Williams privately for clarification before engaging publicly as seen in the above screenshot. He later made contact and took part in an interview.
Is there a bloc, and where is the leadership
During the interview, STPL News raised the long-running question of bloc politics at the Shire, noting that councillors have repeatedly denied the existence of factions despite voting patterns and behaviour suggesting otherwise.
Cr Williams pointed to a letter sent to arbiters that he said had been signed by five councillors without consultation with the remaining councillors.
“The fact they did it without consulting and without wanting our signatures, whatever was in the letter, it starts to divide without you even knowing there’s a divide.”
He indicated he sits outside the group that signed the letter, effectively acknowledging the “five and the six” split that has become a common description of council dynamics. The letter Cr Williams is referring to was the arbitration complaint against marsh that was detailed in the Council Watch post.
STPL News questioned whether this lack of communication, combined with public airing of disputes, reflected a broader failure of leadership to de-escalate tensions inside the chamber.
Arbitration, cost, and leadership pressure
Cr Williams said arbitration and governance disputes had placed pressure on council operations, including meetings missed by the Mayor while arbitration matters were underway.
“Because of meetings and things, Anthony couldn’t attend a few meetings as he had to attend his arbiters meeting stuff.”
He said while governance and arbitration pathways existed for a reason, the way they were being used had deepened internal conflict.
“Because he’s the tall poppy, they went for him.”
Cr Williams also claimed arbitration processes had cost ratepayers significant sums.
“They spent quite a few thousand dollars, multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars, taking it through the arbiters.”
These costing claims have not been independently verified.
MPSC culture versus FCC cohesion
During the interview, STPL News contrasted the Shire’s internal tensions with Frankston City Council, which has projected cohesion over the past 12 months despite councillors not always aligning personally outside the chamber.
The question put to Cr Williams was direct: why has Frankston been able to “make it work” while Mornington Peninsula Shire Council appears increasingly consumed by internal conflict, public point-scoring and fractured relationships.
The term-limits debate was raised as a case study in what residents describe as performative governance, where motions appear designed to provoke or embarrass rather than deliver reform. This is not good use of councillors time or ratepayers money.
Term-limits motion laid bare
The interview turned to the councillor term-limits motion debated at the 23 September council meeting, which ended with Cr Gill leaving the chamber before the vote was finalised.
STPL News put to Cr Williams that the motion appeared to be a clear dig at Gill.
“Yeah, it was.”
Cr Williams said the motion was symbolic and unlikely to achieve any real reform, noting that such changes would require state-level legislative action.
“It was a frivolous point.”
He then made the admission that confirmed long-held public suspicion.
“It was literally just to have a dig at Gill.”
STPL News previously reported on the meeting, where Cr Gill attempted to raise a point of order before leaving the chamber ahead of the final vote.
Escalation, spectacle, and the damage to trust
Cr Williams described the fallout from the motion as a public spectacle that played out well beyond the chamber.
“He overreacted and threw the toys out of the cutlery, stormed out for his 10 seconds, so it looks good on YouTube.”
“That’s what I mean. It’s visible for a lot of people.”
STPL News pressed whether repeated provocation, public targeting and point-scoring risk normalising behaviour that undermines trust in local government and damages the council’s credibility with the community.
Conduct, bullying and the councillor framework
Under Victoria’s councillor conduct framework, bullying by a councillor is classified as serious misconduct when it involves repeated unreasonable behaviour towards another councillor or council staff member that creates a risk to health and safety.
The framework allows for a councillor conduct panel to be formed if alleged serious misconduct is referred to the Principal Councillor Conduct Registrar, subject to statutory time limits.
STPL News is not making a finding of bullying. However, Cr Williams’ description of motions being used “to have a dig” at a colleague, combined with public escalation and spectacle, raises questions about whether leadership has used internal targeting as political tool rather than intervening to restore professional working relationships.
Integrity scrutiny claims
Cr Williams also claimed integrity bodies had taken an interest in the volume of notices of motion being brought before the council.
“We’ve even had the arbiters, IBAC, whoever the IBAC people are, they’ve looked into how many NOMs we’re putting out and they’re going, ‘It’s mainly coming from one councillor, what’s going on there?’”
These claims have not been independently verified. STPL News has contacted the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission seeking clarification.
Looking ahead to 2026
STPL News asked whether residents should expect more of the same heading into 2026, with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor remaining in place.
Cr Williams said he believed the appointment of the new chief executive officer had improved internal stability.
“With the new CEO, Mark, I don’t think we will. There will still be a bit of rumbling, I’m only guessing”
“Things on the inside feel like they’ve stabilised. People are calmer, not as excitable.”
Whether that stability holds will depend on whether councillors and council leadership choose to de-escalate internal conflicts, or continue allowing political manoeuvres and public targeting to overshadow governance and community outcomes.
This article will be updated if responses are received.
