If you’re looking for the moment Mornington Peninsula Shire Council crossed the line from messy internal politics into formal state intervention, it isn’t a single meeting or headline.
It’s the paperwork.
Because when you read the official Terms of Reference for the appointment of two municipal monitors, the conclusion is unavoidable: this is not about policy disagreement — it’s about whether this council can still govern itself.
And that is not a normal place for a council to be.
This is not routine oversight
The monitors were appointed under section 179 of the Local Government Act 2020, a power reserved for serious governance concerns.
The scope laid out for Mornington Peninsula Shire Council is blunt. The monitors are tasked with examining:
- whether councillors understand and comply with their statutory role
- whether councillors are interfering in operational matters
- whether councillors are capable of working together
- whether disputes are being resolved internally or escalated
- whether relationships with staff are being damaged
- whether meeting procedures and decision-making are functional
- whether any councillor is creating health and safety risks or preventing council from performing its functions
Councils that are functioning well do not attract this level of scrutiny.
The focus is behaviour — not politics
What stands out is what the monitors are not reviewing.
They are not assessing infrastructure, service delivery, or political priorities. They are scrutinising conduct, relationships, and process — the foundations of governance.
That alone tells you where the State believes the problem lies.
A year of warning signs, hiding in plain sight
The issues listed in the Terms of Reference closely mirror what residents have already watched unfold.
Over the past year, STPL News has reported on:
- entrenched bloc voting that shut down debate
- councillors being ruled out of order or silenced mid-meeting
- governance motions used to target individuals rather than improve systems
- walkouts from the chamber
- disputes escalating beyond council instead of being resolved internally
- public apologies and backtracking after comments exposed internal fractures
- growing community concern about transparency, integrity, and leadership culture
In one case, Cam Williams told STPL News the councillor term-limits motion was not genuine reform but was “literally just to have a dig at Gill” — an admission that reinforced claims council processes were being weaponised.
That is not robust debate. It is dysfunction.
The health and safety clause is the loudest alarm bell
One clause in the Terms of Reference should give residents pause.
The monitors are explicitly instructed to assess whether any councillor is creating a serious risk to the health and safety of councillors, staff, or others, or is preventing the council from performing its functions.
That language is not routine. It is not symbolic. It is not included unless the concern already exists.
The State does not put occupational health and safety risks linked to councillor behaviour into writing lightly.
Reporting to the Minister — with real consequences
The monitors do not report to council. They report directly to the Minister for Local Government.
They are required to document:
- what governance deficiencies exist
- what advice has been given
- what action was taken
- whether that action worked
- what remains unresolved
They may also recommend further ministerial action under the Act if governance failures persist.
This is not observation for observation’s sake. It is a formal evidence-gathering process.
Attempts to reframe the appointment don’t survive scrutiny
Mayor Anthony Marsh has publicly welcomed the monitors and suggested he sought advice about their appointment.
But municipal monitors are not appointed because a mayor wants assistance. They are appointed because the Minister determines a council cannot be relied upon to fix itself.
The Terms of Reference make that unmistakably clear.
Ratepayers are now paying for dysfunction
The monitors’ appointment also comes with a requirement for public reporting on costs, explicitly “to support transparency”.
That matters because this intervention is extraordinary — and expensive.
When governance breaks down, the community pays twice: once in trust, and again in dollars.
What residents should watch now
Don’t watch the speeches. Watch the behaviour.
Monitors weren’t appointed for optics — they were appointed because the State believes this council can’t fix itself.
So the test is simple:
- Does debate return, or does the shutdown culture continue?
- Do disputes get resolved, or keep exploding publicly?
- Do staff stop being caught in the crossfire?
Because the monitors aren’t just observing — they’re building a record.
And if that record shows nothing has changed, the next step is no longer symbolic: the Minister has the power to dismiss the council and appoint administrators to run the shire.
That’s what’s on the line now.
Mornington Peninsula Council Under the Microscope
State-appointed monitors are now overseeing the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, reporting directly to the Minister. Their appointment is not routine; it signals serious concern about how the council is operating and whether it is meeting its legal and governance obligations.
Monitors are there to scrutinise decision-making, behaviour, and compliance. Their presence confirms what many residents have been saying for some time: the council is not functioning as it should. While councillors remain in place, they are now under direct oversight — a clear warning that patience has run out.
Anne Kruger
Rye 3941
Is this a political move by the Left, now that we have a more conservative Council?