Tuesday, 8 September 2026

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (22:36): Over the life of the Andrews–Allan–Carroll government, the local government sector has been in a state of flux. Since 2015 at least 38 separate local government statutory rules, bills and acts have been introduced by this government. We have seen eight separate ministers cycle through the portfolio, some in this place, some in the other place and one in retirement. Not even one of these ministers made it to three years, and as shadow minister I have seen off two of them. The last minister was elevated from the backbench, then became the shortest serving minister for local government in Victorian history and now serves as the minister for potholes. This bill was introduced by the member for Box Hill in the other place on 17 June, with a second-reading speech delivered the next day. Just weeks later he was gone. As for the incumbent, he is not even present to speak to the bill. Clearly this is a government that treats local government as a junior portfolio at best and a political punching bag at worst.

Before I prosecute the coalition’s concerns, I want to outline what we support. We support extending the process for declaring the office of mayor or deputy mayor vacant to office holders elected for a one-year term. We support the procedural safeguards attached to the notice of motion. These include the reasons in the motion requiring an absolute majority to lodge it, providing 14 days notice and affording a written right of reply. Due to the government’s woeful communication, some councillors were concerned that the amendment would see mayors removed with an absolute majority. That is not the case. For the motion to pass, a minimum of three-quarters of councillors must endorse it. However, we will support any amendments to improve natural justice, including raising the threshold for a notice of motion to be put.

We support the requirement that a councillor may not chair a meeting dealing with their own conduct. That is a simple way to prevent a conflicted councillor misusing the chair to inappropriately protect their position. We support the prohibition on a councillor with a conflict of interest influencing other decision-makers. That was a recommendation from Operation Sandon and a reasonable mechanism to prevent a councillor enriching themselves. We support annual reporting by the principal councillor conduct registrar. We believe that more publicly available information about arbitration and councillor conduct panels is better than less. We support the change to differential rating for the City of Melbourne. The city should be empowered to reduce the number of derelict or abandoned buildings. They are a blight on what could be the best city in the world, and they attract vandalism and other criminal activity. These measures appear in the coalition’s own bill in substantially the same terms. This house can replicate that bill by supporting our amendments.

The bill that arrived in this chamber is better than the version introduced in the other place. When this bill was introduced, it confined the automatic standdown trigger to proceedings commenced by a law enforcement agency but only for the future. Councillors who had already been removed from office by a private prosecution were to be left where they were. At Hepburn shire, councillors were stood down because of untested private prosecutions brought by an alleged vexatious litigant, and those proceedings were later discontinued by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I wrote to the minister on 12 August and asked him to make the correction retrospective. Less than two weeks later I received a series of amendments from the minister’s adviser indicating his support for this change. The minister then moved amendments in the other place to that effect. As a result of these changes, affected councillors would be taken never to have been stood down. They are entitled to the allowances withheld from them, and they cannot be disqualified as councillors for missing the meetings they were barred by law from attending. Those amendments were supported by the coalition in the other place, and they are reflected in my alternative bill.

As far as the coalition is concerned, the most egregious aspect of this bill is part 3, which imposes a Local Government Fair Jobs Code Regulator. Along with the rest of the local government sector, we discovered this proposal when the 2026–27 state budget was handed down in May: $5.4 million to deliver ‘minimising insecure work in the local government sector’ initiatives. On the face of it the budget output appears modest and its intention positive, but the reality is the exact opposite. The word ‘fairness’ in this state is about plundering the hardworking taxpayers and ratepayers of this state to line the pockets of the union bosses and fat cat head boffins. That is exactly what this code will achieve. This funding is allegedly to develop and implement the code and establish a new regulatory body within the Department of Government Services to monitor compliance. Initially the code was supposed to be voluntary, and it was explored by a limited pilot working group in 2023–24. Who was part of that group? We do not definitely know. Did they sign non-disclosure agreements? Allegedly. What were the findings? It is not public. According to a senior council officer, it died a death and was noticeably missing from the subsequent budget.

The wording of the fair jobs code is not in the bill. There is a framework, a regulator, reporting obligations, publication powers and offences, but there are still no draft regulations. We are being asked to create a regulator, arm it with investigative powers and empower it to publish adverse findings against named individuals in relation to a standard that not one member of this Parliament has read. When questioned during the bill briefing, the previous minister’s office said the heads of power must be in place before regulations can be consulted on, let alone drafted. That is simply untrue. This is the routine style of this government: legislate first, inform second, regulate third and enforce fourth. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque and take the government on trust. On the record of the last 12 years, all trust has been lost.

Local government employs tens of thousands of Victorians who collect our waste, staff our libraries, run our maternal and child health services and maintain our roads. Like all Victorians, they deserve fair and stable employment, but as anyone in the sector could tell you, council workers enjoy some of the most insecure work in the state. In his second-reading speech the previous minister offered his evidence base for this code, and it is this:

The Australian Services Union has reported that more than half of local government workers have observed a rise in insecure forms of employment at their council over the past five years.

The previous minister is referring to the results of a survey conducted by the same union which has lobbied for this code since 2022 – a union that presumably surveyed its own members and that stands to gain the most from this bill. Their findings are in stark contrast to those of the Municipal Association of Victoria, which is the legislated nonpartisan peak body for the sector. The MAV surveyed 54 councils and found that permanent ongoing staff make up around three-quarters of the workforce. Ninety-two per cent also reported that their proportion of employees with more than 10 years service exceeded the comparable national benchmark. With nearly 70 per cent of councils surveyed, there is no question that this is a representative sample. They are specific, measurable findings, not the perceptions of a few union members. Commonwealth workplace law already comprehensively regulates job security, casual conversion and minimum conditions across every industry in this country. If there is a local government specific problem that requires a local government specific regulator, the government has clearly not shown it.

The fair jobs code regulator is appointed by the Secretary of the Department of Government Services, a secretary who is appointed by the Premier of the day. The regulator enforces a code written by the minister and reports to the minister. Unlike our integrity and oversight bodies, the regulator is not a genuinely independent statutory officer. Like too many quangos in this state, the regulator will not operate at arm’s length from the government. The persons a regulator could investigate are not elected officials; they are council employees – Victoria’s 79 local government CEOs. These CEOs are personally responsible, unable to delegate the duty to a senior officer and required to lodge a compliance assessment by 31 October each year. They are liable to having a finding of noncompliance published against their name on a government website and left there for five years. This could conceivably affect CEOs whose councils cannot afford to comply with the code. It could sully their reputations and terminate their career prospects. It is insidious intervention into the operation of councils. If the ASU are to be believed, this code could prove to be the death blow to many councils. Services could be brought back in-house to comply with the local government award rates. Seasonal or one-off work could be unnecessarily conducted by permanent staff. Procurement conditions could narrow the field of tenderers to big businesses that comply with the social agenda of the state.

Regional and rural councils, which already struggle to recruit and retain staff, will feel this most sharply. One council in my area has spoken to me about the difficulty of recruiting suitably qualified building surveyors and their need to use contractors to meet their statutory deadlines. This code does nothing to fix the root causes of this shortage and only worsens their problems. Councils have three ways to absorb the potential cost: cut services, sack staff or apply to the Essential Services Commission to raise their rates above the cap. Perhaps that is why this government is allegedly contemplating changes to lift the rate cap.

Finally, I want to touch on the unfairness at the heart of this. As one council said to me, and I paraphrase: ‘We are required to operate with uncertain finances, dependent on grant applications which we may not win. Our revenue is not guaranteed. The only financially responsible way we can operate therefore is to maintain flexibility in our outgoings. It is a fundamental mismatch to require from us onerous ongoing obligations without providing us with funding certainty.’

I turn to the mandatory model governance rules. The previous minister told the other place that these rules will acquit the recommendations of Operation Sandon, which is of course something we would support. But in the same speech he said that the rules are still being developed and that they will be released for public consultation before they are finalised. The working group developing them is operating under strict non-disclosure agreements, so councils cannot see them either. Councils in this state serve populations ranging from a few thousand residents to a few hundred thousand. Forcing councils to adopt mandatory rules that may or may not suit them is simply unworkable, so is requiring them to go out for community consultation to make minor changes. While we are not opposed to model governance rules, councils should not be forced to adopt them at this stage.

The previous minister said that one of the most important decisions a council makes is the employment and performance management of their chief executive. That is exactly why the decision should rest with the elected councillors, who are accountable to their community for it, not with clauses prescribed by regulations which can render a contract void by operation of law. Consider what that means for a council that appoints a chief executive in good faith on a contract that turns out not to comply. Consider what it means for the individual who signed it. Greater consistency in these arrangements is worth pursuing, but it should be done with the sector before legislation is passed.

The technical working group should be appointed and draft regulations released for public consultation before Parliament votes, rather than afterwards. Under this bill a chief executive is placed under a legal duty to report a councillor to the chief municipal inspector, with no obligation to investigate first and no capacity to do so, and with no guidance whatsoever on what to do with an allegation that is trivial, baseless or made for an improper purpose. We should think carefully about what this does to the relationship between a council and its administration. It places an officer in the middle of a political dispute and requires them to act, whatever they think of the merits. It exposes them to allegations of partiality no matter what they do, and it blurs the line between governance and administration.

I turn to the new power for the minister to require a council to resolve an internal dispute. The previous minister presented this as a moderating measure, a step short of appointing a municipal monitor. But the provision contains no enforcement mechanism. It cannot compel anybody to do anything, and there is nothing stopping the minister from doing this now. All it does is create a standing invitation for a minister to grandstand, inserting themselves into the internal affairs of a democratically elected council, and it delivers a new avenue of complaint for any councillor who has lost an argument and would like the minister to relegate it. This government has appointed monitors on multiple occasions, often on dubious grounds and always at great cost to the ratepayer. Creating this new power will do nothing to stop the government’s penchant for interventionism. The government’s bill runs candidate leave until the declaration of a result, which differs from seat to seat. A councillor in one electorate could return to duty weeks before a councillor in another for no reason connected to anything either of them has done. Election day is a single known statewide date. It is the right end point, and we will move an amendment to that effect.

I want to say something about consultation, because this government has made an art form of ignoring it. The coalition sought views from all 79 councils, from more than 600 councillors, from every key peak body and from legal, governance and consulting experts across the sector. Most governance and integrity reforms in this bill enjoy broad support, but the fair jobs code, the mandatory adoption of governance rules, the prescribed CEO arrangements and the new ministerial power attracted caution or outright opposition. Not one council and not one peak body was identified to us as supporting this package in full. The one organisation that has publicly championed the fair jobs code is the union that asked for it and demanded it. It is hardly a coalition of the willing. So where does that leave the coalition and where does it leave this house? We have not opposed the good parts of this bill. We drafted them ourselves and brought them to this chamber. We secured an improvement to this bill on retrospectivity that the government did not initially propose. We will move amendments in committee to remove the fair jobs code and the fair jobs code regulator, the prescribed chief executive employment framework and the ministerial direction power. We will move amendments to confine candidate leave to the period from Victorian Electoral Commission nomination to 6 pm on election day, to make CEO reporting of conflicts discretionary and to ensure councillors are not penalised for attending council premises for private or personal reasons. If those amendments are agreed, this will become a good bill and it will have the coalition’s support. If they are not, then we will have no choice but to reject it.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (22:58): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution on the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Bill 2026. Councils shape the everyday lives of Victorians through the essential local services they provide. It is the level of government that touches people’s everyday lives most directly. Whether it is through waste management, the maintenance of local roads, community infrastructure or local library programs, local government has a direct daily impact on our neighbourhoods. Because of this, Victorians rightly expect their councils to operate with strong governance, and the bill delivers on those expectations.

Our reforms respond directly to the recommendations stemming from the IBAC Operation Sandon special report, the Whittlesea commission of inquiry and our government’s 2022 commitment to creating a local government fair jobs code and an independent regulator to enforce it. This is a practical, comprehensive reform package aimed at making local government stronger and more accountable. These are the kinds of essential systemic reforms that only a Labor government can deliver. This bill strengthens integrity in council decision-making and fundamentally improves the system that supports good governance at the local level. A key measure we are introducing is a new offence to prevent councils and delegated committee members who have a declared conflict of interest from attempting to influence others outside formal council processes. Residents expect their local representatives to act strictly in the public interest. When a decision-maker has a private or financial interest in a matter coming before the council, their obligation to step back is clear. This new offence protects the integrity of council decisions and helps –

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 further hour.

Sheena WATT: When a decision-maker has a private or financial interest in a matter coming before the council, their obligation to step back is clear. This new offence protects the integrity of council decisions and helps ensure that public decisions are made fairly and transparently. It sends a clear message that closed-door lobbying by conflicted individuals will not be tolerated.

The bill requires council chief executive officers to proactively notify the chief municipal inspector if they become aware that a councillor has failed to declare a conflict of interest. This ensures a much clearer pathway for oversight and guarantees strengthened accountability. It improves any ambiguity and places a clear legal obligation on the administrative head of the council to escalate integrity breaches. To build public trust, the community must be able to see how conduct issues are handled, and within this bill there is a requirement that the principal councillor conduct registrar publish annual data on internal arbitration processes and councillor conduct panels. Providing this data improves transparency and public confidence in the management of councillor conduct issues. We are also improving the operation of the councillor conduct framework more broadly, because clearer and more effective conduct processes support better behaviour and stronger public trust.

Good governance starts with clear roles, proper oversight and consistent administrative processes. The relationship between an elected councillor and the CEO is essential to effective administration. This bill mandates that councils establish a CEO employment matters committee to advise on CEO employment and remuneration matters. This reform guarantees a structured, consistent approach that strengthens governance, improves oversight and supports better council leadership. To complement this, the bill enables regulations to prescribe a standard form of contract for council CEOs, and by standardising these contracts we are promoting consistency, transparency and accountability in CEO employment across the entire local government sector. Ratepayers have a right to know that executive contracts are structured fairly and consistently.

In local government leadership stability is crucial, and the bill gives councils the power to declare vacant the office of the mayor or deputy mayor where the person was elected for a one-year term. This reform gives councils greater clarity and the flexibility required to manage their leadership positions when confidence has broken down. It strengthens local government by supporting continuity and proper governance arrangements, allowing councils to reset their leadership and get back to serving their communities.

Across our state we are incredibly fortunate to have dedicated, hardworking local councillors who choose to take the next step and run for state Parliament. Having local government representatives bring their grassroots experience and community advocacy to the state level is a highly positive part of our democratic process. We want to encourage strong local leaders to put their hands up to serve, and especially in my electorate we see fantastic local representatives seeking to contribute in this way. Can I take a moment to acknowledge all those here in this chamber that have served in local government.

To support this transition the bill establishes a clear, practical framework for councillors contesting state elections. It requires a councillor to take a candidate leave of absence when contesting a state election and provides that they cannot perform the role of councillor during that time. It also requires a councillor to formally notify the council CEO if they are selected as a candidate or intend to be a candidate in the state election. This is not a punitive measure; rather, it is a supportive administrative framework that provides absolute clarity for the council administration, the community and the candidate themselves. By creating a clear separation between council responsibilities and election campaigning, we give candidates the certainty they need to entirely focus on their campaigns while ensuring that the day-to-day delivery of local government services continues without any administrative confusion.

Furthermore, the bill introduces a requirement that a council meeting must be chaired by another councillor when the question before the meeting relates directly to the conduct of the chairperson. This simple but necessary reform strengthens integrity and ensures that conduct matters are handled impartially and credibly. Further to governance rules, there are some model governance rules that are to be issued as mandatory governance rules through regulation, which will strengthen consistent meeting procedures across the sector. Stronger, more consistent meeting procedures mean stronger public confidence in how decisions are made. We are also introducing measures to encourage constructive conflict resolution, and the bill encourages the Minister for Local Government to request that a council first attempt to resolve an internal dispute or issue through a council’s own internal resolution procedures before ministerial intervention is considered. Encouraging councils to resolve disputes internally before escalation is a highly practical reform that focuses on restoring functional working relationships.

I now turn to a reform that is fundamentally important to our values here on this side. You cannot claim to support local services by opposing reforms that support the workforce delivering those services. Local governments rely on thousands of dedicated workers: the people who collect the rubbish, run our libraries, maintain our parks and deliver Meals on Wheels. This bill delivers on our 2022 commitment by enabling a local government fair jobs code to be prescribed in regulations aimed directly at minimising insecure work in the local government sector. For too long the creep of contracting out and short-term employment has undermined the livelihoods of working people. Insecure work makes it difficult for people to plan their lives, support their families and secure housing. It also impacts the councils themselves by driving high staff turnover and loss of skills. This bill requires a Local Government Fair Jobs Code Regulator to be appointed, setting out the regulator’s functions and powers to monitor and enforce compliance, investigate and make findings, provide guidance and education and prepare and publish compliance reports. Furthermore, it requires each council CEO to submit a report on compliance with the code to the regulator. These reforms acknowledge a fundamental truth: workforce security directly affects service quality and continuity. By creating a framework to minimise insecure work and improve compliance, the bill strengthens local government through more stable employment settings and better support for essential council services. Our government believes that how councils treat their workers really is everybody’s business, and we will always stand up for fair, secure employment. I take a moment to thank the Australian Services Union for their steadfast advocacy that helped bring this bill before us. It is one that I am enormously proud to stand up here and speak to.

Finally, I want to talk about the City of Melbourne Act 2001 and the elements of this bill that make a targeted amendment to that act. They will enable Melbourne City Council to levy differential rates of up to four times the lowest rate while retaining net annual value as the valuation base. This is really a targeted reform designed to encourage greater development in the City of Melbourne. In our central city we should not have vacant and derelict sites sitting idle and contributing nothing to the local economy or the community. This measure gives Melbourne City Council a practical tool to encourage property owners to bring these vacant and derelict sites back into use. The reform is entirely about activating vacant sites and supporting a more productive central city. Whether these sites are developed for housing, commercial activity or community spaces, we need to ensure that the land in our city is being used to its full potential.

Strong local government matters because strong communities matter. Victorians deserve councils that are well governed, transparent, accountable and focused on the public interest. This bill supports those exact objectives. It strengthens the integrity of local government, supports better governance and advances fairer work in the sector. It ensures our local institutions are better equipped to serve the community while providing clear frameworks for everything from conflict of interest to secure employment. It is with great pride that I commend the bill to the house.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (23:09): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to this bill. Noting the hour of the night, I will not draw this out any longer than is required. The first thing I would seek to do is circulate the opposition’s amendments if that is possible. Mrs McArthur has asked me to do that. I reiterate that the opposition sees some valuable parts to this bill but is concerned about other parts. We will seek a number of amendments, and if the amendments are not upheld, we will oppose the bill. There are some matters that have come through in reports by IBAC and others – Operation Sandon and so forth. Some in this chamber will remember bills brought to this chamber regarding Operation Sandon and other similar matters that have sought to tighten up aspects of local government and ensure that there is a much stronger regime in place.

I should also say that there are a number of points in this bill that we do agree with. I want to start with division 5A, clause 13, in the bill and the insertion of new section 38A, ‘Candidate leave of absence’. This section reads:

If a Councillor nominates for election as a member of the Parliament, the Councillor is taken to have been given leave of absence … from the office of Councillor for the period –

(a) beginning on the day after the day on which the Councillor nominates for election; and

(b) ending on the day the election result is publicly declared.

This is important. This counts councillors out once they become a member or become a candidate for election. This has become a matter of significant contention in my local electorate in the City of Boroondara. It is important I think to note that I wrote to the City of Boroondara on 16 July this year dealing with matters precisely located with these issues, and particularly two councillors, Torney and Ibuki, who are candidates in the forthcoming state election. With these candidates I am concerned about their conflicts of interest and the fact that they are, in my view, misusing their approach to council activity, using it as an opportunity to campaign. They are conflicted. My letter drew attention to a number of these significant points, which are in part addressed by this bill. I make the point that there are aspects of this bill that we think are quite helpful. In the case of Cr Ibuki, who is the deputy mayor currently, that has become a matter of contention at council meetings, where in the general business forum the matter of the conflicts and the difficulty of Ibuki’s behaviour as deputy mayor have been raised for discussion in that section. There are a number of other councillors, some council officers and members of the community who are concerned about deputy mayor Ibuki’s issues with respect to the conflict in the role on those matters.

There is one very specific area where both Torney and Ibuki have run into significant conflicts, which is in part dealt with by that clause that I just pointed to in this bill, which in effect takes councillors out if they become candidates for the state election. In this case Torney and Ibuki received donations each of $140,000 in aggregate in two donations, one of $100,000 and one of $40,000. I see Acting President Berger sitting there, and he is going, ‘That’s quite a large amount of money to receive as a donation,’ and he would be quite right to imagine that is a very large amount of money to receive as a donation in a state election. In fact the Victorian Electoral Commission has made the point that it is the largest donation of which it is aware in the state’s history to an individual for a state election – $140,000 each of those candidates has received. In receiving that money, there was no immediate declaration. Later, when these matters became public, the two councillors repaid the money; they sent it back. I see Ms Watt looking at this. I think many will then ask the question, ‘Well, what happened in that interim period?’ That was partially the point of my writing a letter to the City of Boroondara. In the interim period those two councillors were sitting there with $140,000 burning in their pocket, literally burning away, having I am sure some influence on their decision-making at council. I wrote to the council, and they have written back. With respect to declarations of donations, they wrote back to me in an email dated 30 July. On this declaration, I understand, they said:

… declarations pf political donations for state elections are regulated under the Electoral Act 2002 (Vic).

which is true. They said:

It is not Council’s place to comment how those rules affect independent candidates not bound by party rules, but a matter for State Parliament to regulate.

As far as that goes, that is correct. ‘Conflicts of interest’ is the other heading in the response to me:

Under the Local Government Act 2020 (Vic), the responsibility to declare conflicts of interest lies with Councillors.

It appears those two councillors did not declare a conflict of interest. They continued:

I am not aware of any requirement –

this is the City of Boroondara’s response –

to positively declare either political donations for state elections, or agreements about exchanging preferences.

There are a set of preference issues here too. But my point here is that it is hard to imagine those councillors sitting there at council meetings and voting on items here and items there, including the annual council budget and a whole raft of different matters considered, from local traffic through to electrification of matters – noting the donations were received from Climate 200, so they have got a set of purposes in those donations – and the councillors are sitting there at the council meetings looking at the agenda and trying to make their decisions. They have not at this point declared the donations and have not yet returned the donations, but even after they had returned them, would this have had any influence on anyone? I do not know, Acting President Berger, if you had $140,000 burning away in your pocket and you were voting at a council meeting, whether that would have any influence on you. I suspect in your case it would not, but in some people’s cases it could. There does not appear to have been a declaration at council level about the fact that they had received these very significant donations, and especially about that period before it was repaid and the decisions that have been made. Where does that leave those council decisions and the conflicts of interest undeclared at that point? One thing this bill does is it remedies this conflict that is occurring in the case of these two Boroondara councillors, because when this bill is passed both of them will no longer be able to be on council remaining as council members. They will be out, and the conflict will thereby end. Even though they have handed back the $140,000 donation each, there is that issue of the lengthy period of time before these matters were cleared up and they repaid the money, and there is the question of what influence it might have had on council.

Some of these teal candidates, teal individuals, talk a high and mighty game on integrity, but actually the high and mighty game appears in this case not to have been met. They seem to me to have fallen short of the standards that the community would expect. The integrity standards seem to have slipped in this case. They held integrity forums in the municipality, and they are always welcome – one of them I attended. But I would say in this matter that two of them had fallen short. This bill will directly address that problem. So to that extent we strongly support that clause in the bill that says you cannot be a councillor and a candidate for Parliament, because there is inherently a challenge or a conflict of interest there. Some of us remember this was first brought to the fore by the Brimbank report by the Ombudsman some years ago, and new rules were put in place then about what roles people could hold and adopt in this murky area. This case was about Labor MPs and their staff who were on council, and the Ombudsman’s report and subsequent legislation severed that position. You could no longer have a staff member on council effectively directing traffic on council, as was occurring out in Brimbank in that period before 2009.

The bills that we brought forward concerning a number of the local government issues have still not been addressed in this bill and still require further work, in my humble view. One of them that would be a concern is those who were on planning authorities acting as consultants but also hawking themselves around for payment to get access on a number of points. These sorts of matters, which were a part of the IBAC reports in recent years, are still to be addressed.

I did want to make those points about local government and about some of the positive aspects of this. Clause 32 on page 27 of the bill also deals with a number of these disclosures of conflicts of interest. It is the spirit of this that I think those councillors in Boroondara have fallen down on. They have not made the sorts of declarations that you would expect those who are particularly interested in integrity to have made.

I think I have said enough on this occasion other than to say that we will be watching the steps with this bill very closely. In the case of those councillors who do have these conflicts and are standing for office, if the bill is passed we will be ensuring that they do step down and that the conflicts are ended. In the case of those two Boroondara councillors, there is still the outstanding issue of the votes that were taken on council in the period after they received the $140,000, before they repaid it and whilst there was no declaration at local council. There is a genuine concern here. I think people have not always thought about the prospect of these occasions where conflicts of that type can occur. This bill makes a start on that, and to that extent I welcome it.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (23:22): I am very pleased to reflect on local government. I had the privilege and honour to serve on Warrnambool City Council for 12 years, and two of those years were as mayor. I appreciate Ms Watt’s comments about people in this chamber that were councillors. You learn a lot about the community that you live in. Of course councils look after some of the issues that impact communities closely and on a daily basis: roads, parks, sporting facilities, libraries, waste collection, maternal and child health, many of the services and facilities our communities rely on, swimming pools – and in our case in Warrnambool, the foreshore, the Port of Warrnambool, an art gallery, there used to be some saleyards, a theatre – and a whole range of things. That experience gave me a real appreciation of both the responsibility that comes with elected office and the importance of good governance.

Councillors make decisions involving significant amounts of public money and issues that directly affect their communities. With that responsibility comes an expectation that those decisions are made honestly, transparently and in the public interest. The bill before us responds to the recommendations from IBAC’s Operation Sandon, the special report; the Whittlesea commission of inquiry; and the government’s commitment to establishing a local governments fair jobs code. It addresses known weaknesses in the system and provides clearer rules for councils, councillors and senior administrators. Importantly, the bill strengthens conflict-of-interest provisions. I must say that during my time on council I saw councillors operating with absolutely beautiful good conduct, regard for their colleagues, respect and very, very different views on the issues. That was fantastic because that is what it is all about. I also saw periods of time where councillors made power plays and were more interested in control and power than in the issues of the community. It is not an easy thing to get the regulations and laws right in keeping everybody focused on the best way to do things.

The conflict-of-interest changes create a new offence preventing councillors and delegated committee members who have a conflict from attempting to influence others outside formal council processes. That is extremely logical, and I think everybody in this chamber has endorsed the sensible nature of that change. Council CEOs will also be required to notify the chief municipal inspector if they become aware that a councillor has failed to declare a conflict. I think that is extremely important because if that is not compulsory, then CEOs can either inadvertently or explicitly have pressure put on them in relation to declarations that might relate to the longevity of their appointment. It is best to take that out of the dynamic. The principal councillor conduct registrar will publish annual information about internal arbitration processes and councillor conduct panels, and these measures provide greater transparency and clearer pathways for dealing with misconduct when it occurs.

The bill also strengthens governance around council CEOs. From my experience in local government I know the relationship between councillors and the CEO is critical to a well-functioning council, and there must be clear roles, professional relationships and appropriate oversight. Councils will now be required to establish a CEO employment matters committee to advise on employment and remuneration, and that committee must have an independent chair. I do remember that that is exactly what was established when I was on Warrnambool City Council: an employment matters committee with an independent chair, a respected local person – a former academic actually was the first person. I think a former academic was the second independent chair of Warrnambool’s employment matters committee as well. The important change in this bill is that it will require all Victorian councils to have an independent chair for that committee, which will strengthen governance. Within this committee regulations will also be able to prescribe a standard form contract for council CEOs – awesome. As someone who has been on a lot of these committees not just at council but on boards as well, that is fantastic. It saves a lot of work, providing greater consistency and transparency around one of the most important appointments a council makes.

The bill clarifies a number of issues relating to councillors themselves. Where a councillor has been stood down, there will be clearer rules about what that means, including an offence where someone who knows or reasonably should know that they are stood down continues to act as a councillor. There will also be a clearer separation between council responsibilities and state election campaigning, as my colleagues have mentioned. I think it is very good that the two need to be separate and that there will be a standdown period, which is most appropriate. The bill also strengthens procedural fairness within council meetings where a matter concerns the conduct of the person chairing the meeting. As has been mentioned already, the chair should stand aside. The bill will also enable consistent mandatory governance rules allowing the Minister for Local Government to request the council to first attempt to resolve any disputes that they might have before seeking external intervention.

Another significant element of this legislation is the local government fair jobs code. Councils cannot deliver quality services without the people who work for them. The bill provides for the code to be prescribed in regulations with the aim of minimising insecure employment across the sector. A fair jobs code regulator will monitor and enforce compliance, investigate potential breaches, provide guidance and education and publish compliance reports. The implication from those opposite that because a union has been consulted, that brings this proposal into disrepute is, quite frankly, absurd. Who does not want a secure job? I do not know anybody who does not want a secure job. And if a secure job can be provided, it ought to be. Council CEOs will also report on their compliance with that code. This is particularly relevant in regional Victoria, where attracting and retaining skilled workers can already be challenging.

I also welcome amendments made in the other place addressing an issue highlighted by recent private prosecutions involving councillors at Hepburn shire. Certainly the councillors in Warrnambool and the south-west region have raised that issue with me, and I am very glad to see it in the bill. They also address standdowns arising from private prosecutions, with retrospective provisions protecting councillors who might otherwise be unfairly caught by the existing laws before these reforms commence.

Victorians deserve local government that is transparent and accountable, with proper processes for managing conflicts, conduct and public decision-making. They also deserve councils with stable workforces capable of delivering the services people rely on. The Carroll Labor government is implementing practical reforms through this bill to achieve those objectives.

 Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (23:32): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.