The salaries of Victoria’s local council CEOs have been the subject of renewed debate throughout this past week, following official disclosures demonstrating a sharp rise in remuneration across several municipalities for the 2024–25 financial year. At the head is Alison Leighton, Chief Executive Officer for the City of Melbourne, who emerged as the highest-paid among council CEOs in the state with an estimated total package of between A$560,000 and A$569,000.
The figures, published through state transparency reports and local media, highlight a growing pay gap between public sector executives and the communities they serve. Against a backdrop of budget pressures, ratepayer discontent, and service delivery challenges in many councils, this jump in executive compensation has revived long-standing questions of accountability and value for money in local governance.
The data reveals that several Victorian councils have increased their CEOs’ remuneration bands by 5–10% compared with last year. Besides Leighton, other top earners include executives from the Greater Geelong, Monash, Boroondara, and Manningham councils, who all draw salaries well above A$400,000. Even smaller regional councils, including those in Bendigo and Ballarat, reported salary bands approaching the A$300,000–A$350,000 range — levels that once tended to be reserved for senior state bureaucrats or corporate executives.
Council leaders said these figures are defensible, citing modern councils as complex organizations requiring experienced leadership to manage infrastructure, planning, economic development, and environmental responsibilities. Many councils oversee multimillion-dollar budgets, hundreds of staff, and growing regulatory obligations, making competitive pay necessary to attract and retain capable talent.
“Running a major council today is comparable to managing a large corporation,” said one Victorian mayor. “The scale and scrutiny are enormous — from waste management and housing to climate response and public transport. We can’t expect to hire skilled leaders on outdated pay structures.”
However, critics, including some ratepayer associations and local advocacy groups, argue that these salary increases are being implemented in the era of cost-of-living pressures by residents, with councils increasing rates and cutting community services. Many have called for an independent review into council executive pay to ensure remuneration reflects performance and outcomes for the community.
“Ratepayers are right to ask whether they’re getting better leadership or just bigger bills,” said Paul Hunter, spokesperson for the Victorian Ratepayers Association. “If services aren’t improving proportionately, it’s hard to justify six-figure increases at the top.”
The State Government’s remuneration framework is set by the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal, which gives councils some scope for discretion in determining CEO pay within approved bands that are regularly reviewed in line with council size, budget, and regional factors. However, critics note that it lacks specific performance-linked metrics and allows for inconsistent interpretations by municipalities.
Comparisons with other sectors have also shaped the public reaction. For example, while the Victorian Premier earns about A$480,000 per year, several local council CEOs now out-earn the state’s top political leader. That contrast has become a talking point in debates over the equity and effectiveness of the system for setting public pay.
Transparency advocates argue that such long remunerations with no accompanying accountability in turn disconnect the public from local institutions. The last couple of years saw a few councils embroiled in public controversies over inefficiencies, project delays, and governance issues. The revelation of rising executive packages might amplify that distrust, unless accompanied by visible improvements in governance outcomes.
Economists and governance analysts have called for a balanced perspective, saying that while competitive pay can be justified, councils should give more information about how compensation is linked to performance indicators, such as financial management, community satisfaction, and infrastructure delivery.
“The issue is not what CEOs receive, but rather how their performance is measured,” said Dr. Rachel Norman, a public policy expert from Monash University. “If remuneration is transparent, merit-based, and connected to measurable outcomes, it becomes easier for the public to accept.”
As debate increases, some councils have promised to reconsider their executive remuneration structures and provide more transparent summaries of councillors’ performance to residents. Meanwhile, unions representing local government staff say the comparison of chief executive pay rises to modest worker wage growth remains a growing source of frustration for council employees.
The spotlight is unlikely to dim soon for Alison Leighton and her peers. The question now is whether local governments can balance the need for capable leadership with the imperative of public trust as ratepayers demand more transparency and efficiency. The broader takeaway, however, is clear: in an era of tightening household budgets and rising scrutiny, every dollar spent on leadership must be justified not just in salary reports but in tangible community outcomes.
