'arguably corrupt' magistrate blasts politicians wasting public funds for personal legal battles

Councils across Australia and debates inside Victoria’s local government sector in particular are coming under fresh scrutiny as elected officials increasingly turn to legal tools and public money to silence critics.

Documents, court decisions and recent reporting show a worrying pattern: policies that allow councillors or council staff to use ratepayer funds to pursue defamation or related litigation, combined with the use of Personal Safety Intervention Orders (PSIOs), can create a sharp power imbalance between councils and residents who speak out.

At the centre of the discussion in Victoria is a simmering battle over how best to protect councillors from harassment while preserving the public’s right to robust political criticism. The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) the peak body that represents Victoria’s 79 councils has been the central point for motions and debate about how to respond to online campaigning and targeted criticism of councillors.

Reporting shows motions linked to condemning alleged online abuse were recently put to MAV delegates and remain contested.

Ratepayer funds and defamation litigation

Across Australia there are precedents in which councils adopted policies allowing the use of public money to defend or even pursue defamation claims by councillors or senior staff. Legal commentary warns such spending risks being “private” in purpose and possibly unlawful if it does not serve the council’s functions or the broader community benefit.

In some jurisdictions the practice has already attracted strong pushback: in Tasmania a Supreme Court judgment criticised a council’s decision to fund a mayor’s personal defamation case with public money as “arguably corrupt”.

The controversy is not unique to Victoria. In Western Australia the City of Rockingham moved in 2025 to overturn a policy that could have allowed councillors to use ratepayer funds for defamation actions after that policy drew widespread criticism as an inappropriate use of public money. Critics say such policies create an asymmetry: the legal and financial muscle of the council becomes available to officials but is not available to ordinary residents who face council decisions or criticism.

Defamation suits are expensive to defend and can have a deterrent effect: residents and local activists who critique council decisions may face the prospect of protracted legal action backed by municipal budgets. Legal experts argue councils must apply sound financial-management principles and ensure any legal spending is proportionate, lawful and demonstrably in the public interest.

Intervention Orders: Personal Safety or Political Tools?

Personal Safety Intervention Orders (PSIOs) were introduced in Victoria to protect people from stalking, harassment and conduct that puts them at risk. The Magistrates’ Court and Victoria Legal Aid describe PSIOs as civil orders focused on keeping people safe; breaches can carry serious penalties. But recent cases show PSIOs are now featuring in political rows most notably in disputes involving Council Watch, a high profile Victoria based pro ratepayer group that has repeatedly criticised councillors online.

In one high profile Melbourne case, a two year PSIO was granted to the Stonnington mayor after a Magistrates’ Court found social media posts crossed the line from political commentary into targeted harassment.

That ruling and other instances have prompted fierce debate: councillors and some council staff argue PSIOs are a vital safety tool in the face of intense, sometimes personalised online campaigns. Opponents say they can be used as a public relations instrument to silence persistent critics and chill political speech, especially when authorities such as police view some online conduct as “political in nature” and reluctant to intervene.

The ABC and other outlets have reported councillors who feel threatened say they struggle to get police intervention unless there is an imminent physical threat. At the same time, courts must balance protection with free expression a difficult task when online commentary sits on the thin line between legitimate political scrutiny and targeted harassment.

Critics worry that the PSIO mechanism, while often appropriate for genuinely dangerous situations, can be perceived or deployed in ways that silence civic oversight rather than protect safety.

Scrutiny needed for public funds use

Civil society groups, legal commentators and some councils themselves have called for clearer rules and stronger safeguards. The Local Government Act and related jurisprudence require councils to spend public funds for legitimate, demonstrable public purposes. Where legal spending relates to defamation or harassment, councils are urged to adopt transparent policies, independent oversight and criteria that prevent private or political protection from being funded by the public purse.

Watchdogs such as the Victorian Ombudsman and courts have shown they will scrutinise questionable uses of public money..

The Northern Midlands (Tasmania) case is an example where judicial scrutiny found a council’s funding decision unlawful a reminder that courts can and will intervene when public funds are used for private ends.

elected officials deserve protection from genuine threats and harassment, but that protection should not be a backdoor to using ratepayer money for personal legal battles or a tool to mute political dissent.

Residents who feel intimidated by councils using legal or policing tools as part of political disputes will likely demand stronger guardrails. At the same time, councillors who experience harassment legitimately ask for clear, effective ways to protect themselves. Finding a balance will require legislative clarity, model policies from peak bodies such as the MAV, and careful oversight by courts and ombudsmen to ensure ratepayer funds are used only for legitimate public purposes.

What are your thoughts?

image sources provided as is information reported on via media links

Posted Using INLEO