By Rebecca Freebody
for the 2025 Risky Women Writing Competition, presented in partnership with Ocorian
In the often-dull realm of Governance, Risk, and Compliance, vital battles against extremist ideologies are being fought. While many see GRC as just bureaucratic red tape, it surprisingly serves as the guardian of public trust—who would have thought risk management could have such dramatic stakes?
Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) can readily be dismissed as bureaucratic red tape; especially in areas such as local government, where community expectations are high and localised scrutiny is constant. GRC is more than a compliance function. It provides stability and the foundation for our architecture of public trust.
And yet it is failing. Why? Because antiquated risk cultures continue to fail to contemporise and address emerging threats, like the infiltration of extremist ideologies into local councils, and the effect that it can have on community and council.
In many councils, failing GRC frameworks are attributed to several factors. According to Quantivate (2019), 69 % of executives are concerned that their current GRC frameworks were unlikely to meet future requirements, due to siloed departments, lack of unified leadership and outdated manual processes, and 57% of senior level executives ranked ‘”risk and compliance” as one of the top two risk categories they feel least prepared to address.’
We need leaders that can navigate decision making with foresight and ethical clarity. When this infiltration of extremist ideologies occurs through our elected officials, we run the risk of misinformation being spread, democratic processes being obstructed and staff being intimidated or harassed- ultimately the integrity of local government is compromised.
As a woman working in risk in local government, I have seen all too often how GRC’s can protect or fail our communities- specifically our marginalised or vulnerable groups. To address this growing vulnerability, we must expand our current GRC frameworks to include this threat; starting with a new proposed model: the Ideological Integrity Framework (IIF).
A New Approach: Ideological Integrity Framework (IIF)
To drive real change, I propose the creation of a structured framework; Ideological Integrity Framework (IIF). – a model that identifies, assesses and manages ideological risks within already existing GRC systems, one which does not infringe on democratic participation.
This framework would include;
- Pre-election risk scanning
- Look beyond current candidate screening and include a dedicated team, devoted to screening candidates for public statements and affiliations for indicators for anti-democratic or hate-based ideologies. It should focus on behavioural indicators, not political beliefs or affiliations alone.
- Mandatory induction and enforcement
- Once elected, officials must complete a mandatory onboarding, covering governance principles and codes of conduct (which is currently already in place). Education is imperative in this step, making elected officials understand the boundaries between harmful conduct and political expression.
- Behaviour risk indicators
- Develop a risk register of reportable incidents, such as procedural obstruction, misinformation or staff harassment, that trigger internal management review and escalation protocols.
- Protected disclosure procedures
- Establish a confidential process for staff and community members to report extremist behaviour (outside of the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission), with clear protections against councillor or staff retaliation. To avoid politicisation, the IIF shall be overseen by independent ethics panel of lawyers, community representatives and governance experts.
- Integration into GRC processes
- Ideological risk should be formally identified using each councils’ enterprise risk management frameworks, with regular monitoring, reporting and mitigation strategies embedded into council risk registers.
Real world impacts
The need for an Ideological Integrity Framework (IIF) is not just theoretical; there are real world impacts of extremist behaviour showing in elected representatives already. In Australia, the Shoalhaven City Council (in the state of New South Wales), elected representative Andrew Guile (who served on the council for almost a decade) faced public scrutiny over councillor conduct that was obstructive and ideologically motivated.
His actions were far reaching, with reports of promoting religious agendas and engaging in heated, unprofessional exchanges with colleagues during formal council meetings, engaging in divisive political tactics and targeting fellow councillors, particularly Greens Mayor Amanda Findley, with inflammatory rhetoric and obstructive behaviour. Councillor Guile also opposed inclusive practices, such as removing Christian only prayers from council meetings and his broader ideological stance aligned with the Christian Right (Hutchinson, 2021; ABC News 2012). Whilst not officially determined ‘extremist’, examples such as this can highlight the importance of the IIF to proactively manage such risks and protect democratic integrity.
Global Relevance and Ethical Considerations
The rise of extremist political parties and the introduction of hate-based policies are not a unique issue to Australian government. Local and federal governments across the world are facing similar challenges, showing the IIF framework has international adaptability across jurisdictions and has the ability to be scaled on governance maturity.
It is imperative to acknowledge that ideological extremism is extended to both sides of the political spectrum-whilst the far right has been more featured in today’s political climate, it is important to realise that the far left can have ideologies that are anti-democratic, disruptive or exclusionary.
The IIF does not seek to suppress dissent on either side- rather it draws the clear distinction that there is no place in any level of government that includes ideologies that promote hate, deliberate obstruction of democratic process or discrimination.
From Blind spot to Strategic Priority
By embedding the Ideological Integrity Framework (IIF) into already existing GRC frameworks, Councils can move from reactive crisis management to proactive risk prevention.
Whilst maintaining the principles of governance, we can ensure that the institutions closest to our communities and constituents, remain accountable, lawful and inclusive.
Let us lead with commitment, clarity and courage to the values that define resilient governance.
References:
• Quantivate (2019). Why GRC Matters: 50 Risk & Compliance Statistics. Why GRC Matters: 50 Risk & Compliance Statistics – Quantivate
• Hutchinson, A. (2021, August 15). Smears, lies and idiots – The far right’s assault on Shoalhaven Council. New Bush Telegraph. https://newbushtelegraph.org.au/smears-lies-and-idiots-the-far-rights-assault-on-shoalhaven-council
• ABC News. (2012, September 24). Shoalhaven councillor breached code of conduct. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-24/guile-breach/4277004