Clarence Valley Council's decision to vote in favour of a 3 per cent pay rise for councillors is already stirring tension online, with community forums and comment threads lighting up in response. But should it really be causing such backlash?
The increase, recommended by the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal, will see councillor pay rise from $26,512 to $27,307 per year a modest $795 boost, equating to just over $15 a week. Councillors are classified as part-time, but many report spending more than 20 hours per week attending meetings, reading reports, liaising with constituents, and participating in weekend community events all without penalty rates.
When broken down, their hourly rate averages about $25.49 less than that of a Level 1 food service worker, who earns $25.65 an hour before penalties for weekends or late shifts.
While the increase aligns with state-wide standards and cost-of-living adjustments, the optics of councillors accepting a raise during a time of economic pressure for ratepayers has divided opinion.
Some community members are angered, questioning why councillors deserve more money at all. Others have pointed out that if we want quality, committed representation, we must be willing to fairly compensate those stepping up to lead.
A few councillors acknowledged the tension this may cause in the community, with at least one suggesting that those who do not wish to accept the increase could donate the additional funds to local charities.
Still, it raises a broader question about process. Should councillors be voting on their own pay rise at all? In most other industries, employees do not get to decide their own salaries. The practice, while legally permitted in local government, continues to fuel public debate about fairness, transparency, and accountability.