Thursday, 18 June 2026

 Paul HAMER (Box Hill – Minister for Local Government, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Corrections) (15:03): Under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility:

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Bill 2026 (Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The main purposes of the Bill are to amend the Local Government Act 2020 (LGA 2020) to:

• enhance the integrity and governance standards of Councils

• introduce a mandatory Fair Jobs Code (Code) for local government to minimise all forms of insecure work in the local government sector

• and to make other miscellaneous amendments to improve the operation of the LGA 2020.

Amendments to the LGA 2020 carried by the Bill include amendments to:

• permit councils to declare the office of a mayor or deputy mayor vacant where they have been elected for a one-year term

• provide for councillors to take candidate leave of absence when nominating for election as a member of the Victorian Parliament

• require councils to establish a Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee to provide independent professional advice in relation to the matters dealt with in the Chief Executive Officer Employment and Remuneration Policy

• strengthen requirements for managing and reporting conflicts of interest

• clarify the application of the stand down provisions to councillors under the LGA 2020

• enable the Minister for Local Government to request that a council attempt to resolve an internal dispute or issue in the first instance.

• enable the prescription of a Fair Jobs Code in regulations

• provide for the appointment of a Local Government Fair Jobs Code Regulator (Regulator)

• to make any related and consequential amendments to enable monitoring, assessment and review of a CEO’s compliance with the Code by the Regulator.

The Bill will also amend the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to increase the permitted ratio between the lowest and highest differential rates if the Melbourne City Council uses the net annual value system of valuation.

Human Rights Issues

The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are:

• The right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

• The right to freedom of expression (section 15)

• The right to take part in public life (section 18)

• Property rights (section 20).

• The right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 26).

Right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

Section 13 of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with and not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked.

Clause 13 inserts new section 38A into the LGA 2020 that provides that when a councillor has nominated for election as a member of the Victorian Parliament, the councillor is taken to have been given a candidate leave of absence until the election result is publicly declared. This ensures that there is no conflict between a councillor’s role under the LGA 2020 and their campaigning activities when running for another office. New section 38A(4) provides that a councillor on a candidate leave of absence cannot perform the duties of a councillor under the LGA 2020 and are not entitled to receive their allowance.

New section 38B, to be inserted by Clause 13, also imposes a requirement for councillors to notify the CEO as soon as possible after being selected by a political party to be a candidate as a member of the Victorian Parliament or after they publicly announce an intention to be a candidate for election as a member of the Parliament. A councillor who becomes a candidate for election is prevented from being elected or appointed to the office of mayor, deputy mayor or acting mayor during the initial candidacy period. Additionally, if a relevant councillor holds the office of mayor, deputy mayor or acting mayor, they are taken to be incapable of performing the duties of that office during the initial candidacy period. Mayors, deputy mayors and acting mayors can continue to serve as councillors until such time as they lodge their nomination. New section 38B requires a councillor to provide written notice to the CEO of the councillor’s nomination for election, of them being selected by a political party to be a candidate for election or of them publicly announcing an intention to be a candidate for election.

Section 38B requires a councillor to divulge information that might otherwise be private in nature, thus engaging the right to privacy. However, any impacts on the right to privacy and reputation are not arbitrary or unlawful and seek to promote transparency and compliance with the candidate leave of absence provisions of the Bill. The requirement to notify the CEO of these matters also ensures that councils are given adequate notice to put in place any arrangements needed to accommodate a candidate leave of absence, such as arrangements for appointing an acting Mayor. As such, to the extent that disclosure of such information will interfere with privacy, any such interference will be lawful and not arbitrary, and will therefore be compatible with the right to privacy.

Clause 28 amends section 45 of the LGA 2020 to require the council to establish an independently chaired Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee the purpose of which is to provide independent professional advice in relation to the CEO’s employment and remuneration, including recruiting and appointing a new CEO, performance monitoring and annual performance reviews. Clause 28 may engage the right to privacy to the extent that the amendments may result in the committee having access to, and giving advice on, personal information pertaining to a CEO’s contractual arrangements, remuneration and performance. However, any impacts on the right to privacy and reputation are not arbitrary or unlawful.

One of the most important decisions a council can make relates to the employment and performance management of their CEO. The aim of the Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee is to ensure that the council is provided with independent professional advice to guide their decision making relating to the employment and performance management of the CEO. Additionally, members of the committee would be required to comply with any council processes regarding the management of confidential information.

Strengthened requirements for managing and reporting conflict of interests.

Clause 32 introduces a new prohibition on councillors and members of delegated committees who have a conflict of interest in a matter from directing, influencing or attempting to influence or discuss the matter with another relevant person who is participating in, or is expected to participate in, the decision-making process in relation to that matter. Clause 32 also introduces a new requirement for CEOs to notify the Chief Municipal Inspector as soon as they become aware that a councillor has failed to disclose a conflict of interest and exclude themselves from the decision-making process in relation to the matter before council. Information provided to the Chief Municipal Inspector under new section 130(5A) may be used to determine whether an investigation is warranted under the LGA 2020 but will not itself trigger an investigation or the taking of further action by the Chief Municipal Inspector.

While mandatory reporting may be said to limit the right to privacy and reputation (s 13), it is necessary to ensure that the Chief Municipal Inspector is notified of breaches of the LGA 2020. Failures to appropriately declare and manage conflicts of interest, as required under the LGA 2020 and the council’s Governance Rules, are potential signs of integrity issues at a council which erodes the public trust in councils and their ability to act in the communities’ best interests. There is a public interest in ensuring that councillors make decisions impartiality and are not driven by self-interest. I therefore consider that any limitation imposed by clause 32 on the right to privacy and reputation is demonstrably justified under the Charter.

Clause 41 of the Bill engages the right to privacy and reputation because it inserts –

• new section 54H which gives the Regulator power to request that a CEO provide information or documents to the Regulator

• new section 54I that gives the Regulator the power to issue a CEO with a Fair Jobs Code (FJC) notice which must:

•   specify the details of an alleged failure to comply with the Code and how compliance may be addressed, and

•   state that the CEO may respond by a specified date in writing to the Regulator to provide reasons for the alleged failure to comply with the Code or provide information to demonstrate compliance with the Code.

To the extent that clause 41 of the Bill engages the right to privacy and reputation by giving the Regulator the abovementioned function and powers to investigate a Council CEO, I consider that any interference with the right to privacy and reputation will neither be unlawful nor arbitrary.

The power to request that a CEO provide information or documents to demonstrate compliance with the Code is at the discretion of the Regulator and is not a coercive power. The documents or information provided by a CEO to the Regulator may be used by the Regulator in investigating their compliance with the Code, in tandem with the FJC notice process.

Where the Regulator has reasonable grounds to believe that the CEO is not complying with the Code they must issue the CEO with a FJC notice. The FJC notice must contain specific information including the details of the alleged non-compliance so that the CEO has an opportunity to respond to any non-compliance alleged by the Regulator and ensures procedural fairness is afforded to the CEO.

To the extent that documents specify personal information that have been provided by a CEO to the Regulator in response to a request for information or FJC notice, the Bill may limit the right to privacy however any such limitation is lawful, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. These powers are clearly set out in the Bill, are not coercive and serve the legitimate purpose of promoting effective oversight, accountability and integrity in public administration. The use of such information and documents by the Regulator is limited to determining compliance with the Code.

Regulator power to refer matters

Clause 41 of the Bill further engages the right to privacy because it inserts new section 54J that gives the Regulator a discretion to refer suspected breaches of the Act by a CEO that extend beyond the obligations and requirements of the Code to the Chief Municipal Inspector and Council.

To the extent that proposed section 54J engages the right to privacy by giving the Regulator the discretion to refer matters, I consider that any interference with the right to privacy and reputation is reasonably justified. While personal information may be included in such referrals, this is reasonably necessary to ensure that they can be properly investigated.

Regulator powers to publish findings

Clause 41 of the Bill also engages the right to privacy, in respect of a person’s reputation, by inserting new section 54M that gives the Regulator the power to publish reports on the compliance with the Code by a CEO on a website maintained by the Secretary of the Department of Government Services (DGS).

To the extent that proposed section 54M engages the right to privacy and reputation by giving the Regulator the abovementioned powers to publish findings related to a CEO’s compliance with the Code, I consider that any interference with a CEO’s reputation will be limited to the extent to which a CEO has complied with the Code. The power to publish findings related to a CEO’s compliance with the Code is intended to promote CEO compliance with the Code across the local government sector.

The Bill also only permits details of previous non-compliance from the past 5 years to be published and requires that the Regulator redact any ‘confidential information’, as defined under section 3 of the Act, from any reports published by the Regulator.

The Bill does not limit a CEO’s right to pursue any legal action in response to the Regulator publishing any findings related to their compliance with the Code, including the right to seek an administrative review of the Code Regulator’s decision or any other proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. In this regard, the Bill also provides that the Regulator can recall a notice of decision issued to a CEO following an investigation into whether the CEO has complied with the Code if there are legal proceedings are on foot that relate to an issue that is dealt with in a notice of decision.

For these reasons, I am of the opinion that these provisions are compatible with the right to privacy and reputation in section 13 of the Charter.

Right to freedom of expression (section 15)

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression. Section 15(3) of the Charter provides that special duties and responsibilities are attached to the right to freedom of expression and that the right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights of other persons and for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

Strengthened requirements for managing and reporting conflict of interests

Clause 32 of the Bill may impact the right to freedom of expression by providing that councillors and members of a delegated committee cannot discuss a matter for which they have a conflict of interest, with another relevant person who is participating in, or is expected to participate in, the decision making process in relation to that matter. This provision is reasonable and proportionate as it is consistent with those persons’ existing obligations to remove themselves from the decision-making process and is limited and directed at preventing the exercise of influence over other decision-makers in relation to matters in which that person has a conflict of interest.

Right to take part in public life (section 18)

Section 18(1) of the Charter provides that every person in Victoria has the right, and is to have the opportunity, without discrimination, to participate in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Section 18(2)(b) further provides that every eligible person has the right, and is to have the opportunity, without discrimination, to have access, on general terms of equality, to the Victorian public service and public office.

Declaration of office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor to be vacant

Section 23 of the LGA 2020 currently provides a process for councils to bring a notice of motion to declare the office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor vacant in respect of Mayors or Deputy Mayors that are elected for a two-year term.

Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 23 of the LGA 2020 to enable a council to bring a notice of motion to declare the office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor vacant for Mayors or Deputy Mayors elected for a one-year term.

It also amends this provision to provide additional procedural requirements to be followed where a notice of motion to declare the office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor is proposed. This includes that a notice of motion to declare the office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor vacant must specify the reasons for the proposed motion, be signed by an absolute majority of the councillors and be lodged with the CEO of the council at least 14 days prior to the consideration of the motion at a council meeting. Additionally, the Mayor or Deputy Mayor in respect of whom the proposed motion relates may provide a written response to the motion which must be provided to each councillor.

Clause 8 may engage the right to take part in public life as it broadens the application of the process for a council to declare the office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor vacant to Mayors or Deputy Mayors elected for a one-year term.

In my view, any limitation to the right to participate in public life is reasonable and justified.

The Mayor and Deputy Mayor hold leadership positions that rely on the confidence of the councillors who elected them to perform their roles effectively and to support the council in carrying out its functions in accordance with the LGA 2020. Where an absolute majority of councillors no longer have confidence in the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, this provision enables the council to move a motion to declare the office vacant and by a three quarters majority vote declare the office vacant to ensure effective leadership.

Importantly, this clause includes additional procedural fairness requirements, including an opportunity for the Mayor or Deputy Mayor who is the subject of a notice of motion to be provided with the reasons for the proposed motion and to respond before any decision by the council is made. Additionally, if the office is declared vacant, the person remains an elected councillor and continues to serve on the council.

Candidate leave of absence

The proposed candidate leave of absence provisions may limit the right to take part in public life insofar as they temporarily prevent a councillor from performing their role as a councillor once they nominate for election as a member of the Parliament.

The proposed candidate leave of absence provisions may also limit the right to take part in public life insofar as they prevent a councillor from performing the role of Mayor, Deputy Mayor or Acting Mayor where they have been nominated by a political party to run in an election or have publicly announced their intention to run in an election.

Currently councillors are encouraged through council policies or guidance to consider taking a leave of absence from their role as a councillor if they have nominated as a candidate for another election. Mayors and Deputy Mayors are also encouraged to consider stepping aside from their role and putting in place acting arrangements after stating their intention to stand as a candidate.

Once a councillor becomes a candidate in a Parliamentary election, there is an increased risk of actual or perceived conflicts between their responsibilities as a councillor and their participation in campaign activities. This also creates confusion for community members who do not know if a candidate is speaking on behalf of the council or in their capacity as a candidate, particularly when the candidate is the Mayor and therefore the spokesperson for the council.

These amendments therefore pursue the legitimate objective of providing a clear and consistent framework for councillors to keep campaigning activities separate from the performance of their role as councillor and to manage potential conflicts of interest during election periods.

Further, I consider that any limitation of the right is reasonable and proportionate. In the case of a councillor nominating for election, it applies only for a defined period being from the day after nominating for an election until their nomination is withdrawn or the election results are declared. Similarly, to the extent that it prevents a councillor from performing the role of Mayor, Deputy Mayor or Acting Mayor, it applies only from the period that they provide notice that they have been preselected or publicly announce their intention to contest the election, to the period they nominate for election. The councillor is not removed from office in either case and is able to resume their duties of that office if not elected to Parliament.

Councillors are democratically elected to carry out public duties and responsibilities. This is both a privilege and a burden. The standing down of a councillor in these circumstances promotes community understanding and clarity around when a councillor is no longer performing the role of councillor and is instead acting as a candidate. This further justifies the limitation.

For these reasons, I am of the opinion that these provisions are compatible with the right to take part in public life as set out in section 18 of the Charter.

Property rights (section 20)

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. While the Charter does not define ‘property’, case law indicates that the term should be interpreted ‘liberally and beneficially to encompass economic interests’.

This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely.

Declaration of office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor to be vacant

Declaring the office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor to be vacant could be said to authorise the deprivation of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor’s property (i.e. their Mayoral or Deputy Mayoral allowance) and therefore engages the right to property.

That being so, the deprivation of property will be ‘in accordance with the law’ where the law providing for the legal authorisation for the deprivation is publicly accessible, clear and certain. A notice to declare the office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor vacant must go to a council meeting, ensuring that the council and Mayor or Deputy Mayor the subject of the proposed notice is notified of the proposed motion and the reasons it is being proposed. Procedural fairness is also provided for, as the Mayor or Deputy Mayor has an opportunity to respond in writing to the motion to ensure that these decisions are not made arbitrarily.

To the extent that any limitations result, I consider any limits to be justified, on the basis that if a Mayor or Deputy Mayor no longer has the confidence of the councillors in their ability to perform their role, it is in the public interest that the office is vacated and the Mayor or Deputy Mayor no longer receive the higher allowance provided to perform the duties.

Candidate leave of absence

Clause 13 could be said to authorise the deprivation of the councillor’s property and engages the right to property by providing that a councillor, Mayor or Deputy Mayor who has nominated for election is on a councillor leave of absence and not eligible to receive their allowance during the period after they have nominated for an election until the election results are publicly declared.

The provision is drafted in clear and precise terms, making it clear that the allowance is not payable in specified circumstances and for specified time periods.

I consider any limits to be justified, on the basis that it is not in the public interest for a person to continue receiving an allowance while carrying out campaign activities and no longer performing the duties of councillor. Further, the deprivation of property is only temporary, in that their entitlement to an allowance resumes if the councillor, Mayor or Deputy Mayor is not elected and returns to their duties. If a councillor is elected to the State Parliament, section 34(2) of the LGA 2020 provides that they can no longer continue to be a councillor and would therefore have no continuing entitlement to receive an allowance.

I therefore am of the view that these clauses are compatible with the rights set out in the Charter.

The right to be presumed innocent (s25(1))

Section 25 of the Charter sets out rights in criminal proceedings. Section 25(1) provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

Standing down of a councillor

Clauses 9, 10, 11, 12, 19 and 24 of the Bill make various amendments to the LGA 2020 to clarify the operation and effect of a councillor being stood down under section 228 and 229 of the LGA 2020.

Clause 11, for example, amends section 35(5) of the LGA 2020 to clarify that a councillor is not taken to be absent from a meeting while the councillor is stood down for the purposes of section 35(1)(e). Clause 24 provides that the automatic standing down of a councillor under section 229 of the LGA 2020 only applies if proceedings for an offence are commenced by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency within the meaning of the LGA 2020. While councillors are already prohibited from performing the role of a councillor while stood down, clause 12 inserts new offence provisions to make this obligation enforceable.

These clauses promote the right to take part in public life (s 18) and the right to property (s 20) by ensuring that the LGA 2020 provides greater clarity to councillors about their obligations when stood down.

Limiting the automatic stand down provisions under section 229 of the LGA 2020 to criminal proceedings commenced by or on behalf of law enforcement agencies will also provide an important safeguard to ensure this provision only operates where serious criminal charges have been brought by agencies exercising established prosecutorial discretion.

I therefore am of the view that these clauses are compatible with the rights set out in the Charter.

Dispute resolution procedures

Clause 33 requires councils to implement and adopt any prescribed procedures for dealing with alleged breaches of the Model Councillor Code of Conduct, alleged serious misconduct or disputes between two or more councillors.

Clause 34 empowers the Minister to require a council to deal with a dispute involving two or more councillors in accordance with any prescribed procedure or advice obtained by the council on sufficient and appropriate steps to resolve the dispute.

While these clauses relate to obligations imposed on councils, they create new processes for councillors engaging with the councillor conduct processes in the LGA 2020. Applications by a councillor, councillors or a council for an arbiter or Councillor Conduct Panel to be appointed to hear an application that alleges misconduct or serious misconduct must include the steps that council has taken to resolve the matter or a justification of why steps have not been taken. Clause 33 enables regulations to be made to support councils to attempt to resolve conduct issues through mediation in the first instance.

The rights under the Charter relating to criminal or civil hearings are not engaged by clauses 33 and 34 as they provide for an efficient and less litigious councillor conduct resolution process and do not limit existing procedural requirements or review rights. I therefore am of the view that these clauses are compatible with the rights set out in the Charter.

The Hon. Paul Hamer MP 

Minister for Local Government 

Minister for Youth Justice 

Minister for Corrections 

 Paul HAMER (Box Hill – Minister for Local Government, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Corrections) (15:04): Under the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I table a statement of treaty compatibility:

1.   In accordance with section 66 of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I table a statement of Treaty compatibility for the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Bill 2026.

2.   In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the matters set out in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

3.   The main purposes of the Bill are to amend the Local Government Act 2020 (LGA 2020):

a. to enhance the integrity and governance standards of Councils

b. to acquit the Victorian Government’s commitment to introduce a Local Government Fair Jobs Code (LGFJC) and establish a Local Government Fair Jobs Code Regulator (Regulator) to oversee compliance with the LGFJC, and

c. to make other miscellaneous amendments to improve the operation of the LGA 2020.

4.   The Bill also amends the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to increase the permitted ratio between the lowest and highest differential rates if the Melbourne City Council uses the net annual value system of valuation.

5.   The amendments to the LGA 2020 in the Bill include amendments to:

a. strengthen requirements for managing conflicts of interest;

b. provide for Councillors to take candidate leave of absence when nominating for election as a member of the Parliament;

c. permit Councils to declare the office of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor vacant who have been elected for a one-year term;

d. require Councils to establish a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Employment Matters Committee to provide independent professional advice in relation to the matters dealt with in the Chief Executive Officer Employment and Remuneration Policy;

e. enable the prescription of model governance rules to be adopted or incorporated as part of a Council’s Governance Rules;

f. enable the prescription of a standard form of contract of employment between a Council and its CEO;

g. require Councils to implement and adopt an expanded council internal resolution procedure that can deal with a wider range of internal disputes, and to enable the Minister to request a council to attempt to resolve an internal dispute or issue in the first instance, before deciding whether Ministerial intervention is warranted;

h. provide for the LGFJC to be prescribed in regulations, which the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a council must comply with;

i. provide for the appointment of a Regulator to monitor compliance with the LGFJC;

j. set out the functions and powers of the Regulator to monitor compliance by investigating and making findings in relation to non-compliance with the LGFJC, publishing reports of non-compliance, providing guidance and education to a CEO and preparing and publishing annual reports on CEO compliance with the LGFJC;

k. require a CEO of a council to demonstrate compliance with the LGFJC by undertaking an annual compliance assessment and providing this to the Regulator; and

l. set out the process for investigating CEO compliance with the LGFJC via own motion or complaint driven investigations by requesting information, issuing show cause notices and notice of decision including findings and reasons for decisions.

6.   The Bill does not in its terms deal with First Peoples, nor is it expected that any aspects of the Bill will, in practice, have a differential impact on First Peoples. It therefore does not affect the objects in the Statewide Treaty Act 2025.

Consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl

7.   Due to the recent establishment of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl, it was not possible to give the First Peoples’ Assembly the opportunity to advise on the Bill or for them to otherwise make representations about the effect of the Bill on First Peoples.

Compatibility of the Bill with each of the objects in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025

8.   I have considered whether the Bill is compatible with the objects at section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 of:

a. advancing the inherent rights and self determination of First Peoples; and

b. addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation; and

c. ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.

9.   The proposed amendments implement recommendations made by independent bodies, including by the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission, to improve local government governance and integrity, provide a regulatory mechanism to prescribe and oversee compliance with the LGFJC, and enable the City of Melbourne to levy differential rates up to 4 times the lowest rate using Net Annual Value as their valuation base for rates.

Advancing the inherent rights and self determination of First Peoples

10.   In my opinion the Bill does not affect the objects specified in section 66(3)(d)(i) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 and is therefore compatible with this object.

Addressing unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples

11.   In my opinion the Bill does not affect the objects specified in section 66(3)(d)(ii) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 and is therefore compatible with this object.

Ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples

12.   In my opinion the Bill does not affect the objects specified in section 66(3)(d)(iii) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 and is therefore compatible with this object.

The Hon. Paul Hamer MP

Minister for Local Government

Minister for Youth Justice

Minister for Corrections

 Paul HAMER (Box Hill – Minister for Local Government, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Corrections) (15:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

It is an honour to rise today and speak in support of a Bill which will enhance the integrity and governance standards of councils across Victoria, improve the operation of the Local Government Act 2020 (Local Government Act), enable the establishment of the Local Government Fair Jobs Code and a regulatory framework for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the Code by council Chief Executive Officers (CEO), and amend the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to increase the ratio between the lowest and highest differential rates for Melbourne City Council.

This Bill will deliver a range of reforms to prevent corruption, improve councillor conduct and accountability, strengthen the integrity of councils and improve job security, fairness and accountability for the thousands of Victorians working in the local government sector.

Victorians deserve a local government sector that is delivering for the public benefit. Governance failures and corruption in local government hurts the community and erodes public trust in the sector.

Strengthening council governance and integrity

The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s (IBAC) Operation Sandon Special Report and the Commission of Inquiry into the Whittlesea City Council uncovered a range of deficiencies in council processes. It is essential that the lessons from these independent inquiries are adopted to prevent similar failures from occurring again.

Operation Sandon made eighteen recommendations to improve council governance and reduce corruption risks under the Local Government Act, many of which have already been implemented. This Bill addresses the remaining recommendations and translates the lessons learned, and the work already underway with the sector, into enduring legislative reform.

The Bill will require all councils to adopt the prescribed model governance rules. This will standardise meeting procedures across all councils and strengthen the conduct of meetings to ensure good governance. Councils will retain a discretion to adopt supplementary meeting procedures, provided they are not inconsistent with or contradict the mandatory rules, preserving the flexibility for councils to reflect local circumstances while ensuring a consistent baseline of conduct across the State. This reform will acquit recommendation 19 of the Operation Sandon Special Report.

Another four recommendations will be acquitted through the delivery of the model governance rules, which are currently being developed by a sector-led technical working group and will be released for public consultation prior to finalising.

One of the most important decisions a council makes is the employment and performance management of their CEO. Councils must approach this responsibility with rigour and ensure that appropriate independent oversight mechanisms are in place to support sound decision making. The Bill will require councils to establish an independently chaired CEO Employment Matters Committee that will be responsible for providing independent professional advice on a CEO’s employment and remuneration, including on recruitment and appointment, performance monitoring and annual performance reviews. The Bill also requires that CEO appointments must be made in accordance with any prescribed contract of employment.

These reforms are essential for the promotion of consistency and enabling greater oversight of the employment of council CEOs. Councillors must have the tools at their disposal to ensure that their CEO is delivering the best outcomes for the community they serve. These reforms address recommendation 34 of the Operation Sandon Special Report and will ensure that all councils are following best practice when it comes to the employment of their CEO.

The Bill further strengthens conflict of interest provisions in the Local Government Act to ensure that councillors are making decisions impartially and are not driven by self-interest. First, the Bill introduces reforms to prevent councillors with a conflict of interest from attempting to influence other councillors, where a failure to comply will be an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 120 penalty units. Secondly, it introduces a new mandatory reporting requirement for CEOs to notify the Chief Municipal Inspector if they become aware that a councillor has failed to disclose a conflict of interest and exclude themselves from a council decision making process. These reforms will give effect to recommendations 29 and 33 from the Operation Sandon Special Report and are a significant step forward in preventing corruption in local government.

The Bill will give effect to recommendation 32 from the Operation Sandon Special Report by requiring the Principal Councillor Conduct Registrar to report annually on the number of internal arbitration processes and councillor conduct panels, strengthening the transparency of the conduct system.

Strengthening council leadership, accountability and internal governance

The Bill also introduces a series of reforms to give effect to the 2025 findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Whittlesea City Council, which highlighted the vital role of the mayor in guiding council decision-making, representing the interests of the council and the community, and promoting a culture of good councillor conduct. Where a mayor fails to perform that role, councils must have the capacity to respond swiftly and effectively.

The Commission recommended amendments to the Local Government Act to enable councils to act when a mayor fails to perform appropriately in that role and to enable internal dispute resolution to improve council cohesion. In response, the Bill makes amendments to the Local Government Act to provide all councils with the ability to pass a vote of no confidence to remove a mayor or deputy mayor from office, regardless of whether they have been elected for a one- or two-year term. Appropriate safeguards will apply to ensure this power is exercised fairly, including that reasons for a proposed vote of no confidence must be provided, and the mayor or deputy mayor must be given an opportunity to respond before any vote is taken.

The Bill also addresses issues arising when a councillor stands for election to the Victorian Parliament, particularly where the candidate is a mayor who holds the function of being the principal spokesperson for the council. It is essential that councils continue to operate effectively during a State election and that the community knows who is representing the interests of the council and who is campaigning as a parliamentary candidate. To achieve this, the Bill introduces a requirement for councillors to take a leave of absence when nominating for a Victorian State election, codifying what has long been considered best practice for managing conflicting duties and ensuring there is a clear separation between the role of councillor and candidate. The reforms will also require mayors and deputy mayors to stand aside from performing their roles during the candidacy period, ensuring that council decision making and public representation are not compromised.

In addition, the Bill includes reforms addressing how council meetings are to be chaired if a question before the meeting relates to the personal conduct of a councillor. The Commission found that in these circumstances a councillor should have a right to defend themselves and that where the conduct in question relates to the mayor, the mayor should step aside from acting as the chair of the meeting where there is a question about their individual conduct. The Bill mandates the Commission’s recommendations by requiring a council meeting to be chaired by another councillor when the question before the council relates to the conduct of the chairperson.

The Bill also responds to the Commission’s finding that councils should do more to resolve conduct and behavioural issues internally before matters are escalated. The Bill will empower the Minister to request that a council take steps to resolve internal disputes in the first instance, including through its internal resolution procedures, before external intervention, such as the appointment of a municipal monitor or Commission of Inquiry, is considered.

To further strengthen internal dispute resolution by councils, the Bill requires councils to implement and adopt an expanded council internal resolution procedure to be set out in regulations that can deal with a wider range of internal disputes. Under this framework, Ministerial intervention can be appropriately reserved for those situations where a council has taken reasonable steps to resolve issues internally, but external support is needed to alleviate risks to a council’s ability to deliver good governance.

The Bill also makes miscellaneous amendments to improve clarity and consistency throughout the Local Government Act, including by clarifying that a councillor is only automatically stood down in relation to proceedings for an offence brought by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency, and that when a councillor is stood down, they are expressly prohibited from performing the role of a councillor.

The Bill will make several administrative improvements to the councillor conduct framework to provide procedural clarity and ensure the framework operates effectively and as intended.

Delivering a Fair Jobs Code for local government

This Bill will establish the framework to deliver the Government’s commitment to introduce a Fair Jobs Code for local government. It provides for a fair, practical and enforceable code to be prescribed to ensure that the essential public services delivered by local government are underpinned by safe, secure and fair work practices.

We know the critical role local government plays in ensuring our communities function, grow and thrive. Councils are on the frontline of service delivery, providing essential services that Victorians rely on every day ‍– from waste management and the maintenance of local roads and footpaths, to planning and building approvals, and the management of valued community spaces such as parks, libraries and swimming pools. Councils also support community health services, manage pet registration and animal control, and bring communities together through local events.

It is therefore no surprise that local government is one of Victoria’s largest employers, with a diverse workforce delivering these essential services across a wide range of occupations. And given the vital role these workers play, it is only right that they are supported by fair, secure and stable employment.

But increasingly, these Victorians are experiencing insecure and unstable employment conditions. 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. Insecure employment comes with real consequences – fewer rights and protections, limited opportunities for progression, and the uncertainty of not knowing whether the next shift will be available.

That is why, in 2022, this government committed to making sure that those Victorians were given the dignity of secure and stable employment for the important work they do in our communities. We committed to creating a tailored Fair Jobs Code for local government to minimise all forms of insecure work in the sector, and prioritising wages, conditions and secure jobs for workers.

The Local Government Fair Jobs Code (the Code) will complement other initiatives to promote local, secure jobs and support ethically and socially responsible businesses, including Local Jobs First, Victorian Fair Jobs Code, Community Sector Fair Jobs Code and the Victorian Sick Pay Guarantee, just to name a few.

The Bill provides for the Fair Jobs Code to be prescribed in regulations, ensuring there is ample opportunity for consultation and meaningful stakeholder engagement. This will allow any impacts on councils, businesses and communities to be properly identified, addressed and managed.

The Bill also provides for a legislative review every five years, ensuring the framework remains responsive and fit for purpose over time. This will enable the Government to continue to respond to stakeholder feedback and, where necessary, strengthen the Code to support its objectives – including reducing insecure work and promoting fairer and safer employment practices.

The Bill makes clear that CEOs of councils will be responsible for compliance with the Code, consistent with their functions under the LGA 2020. As the statutory officers responsible for all staffing matters within a council – including the appointment, direction, management and, where necessary, dismissal of staff – Chief Executive Officers are appropriately placed to ensure the Code is effectively implemented and upheld.

The Bill also establishes a regulatory framework to support the administration of the Code, including provision for the appointment of a Local Government Fair Jobs Code Regulator by the Secretary to the Department of Government Services (Secretary). The role of the Regulator is clear – to monitor, investigate and promote compliance with the Code, supported by robust public reporting requirements that will drive transparency and accountability across the sector.

The Regulator must publish reports about CEO compliance with the Code annually or at any time the Regulator considers necessary. This will be published on a government website maintained by the Secretary.

Importantly, the Regulator also has a key role in guiding and educating CEOs and councils on their obligations under the Code and can refer matters to relevant integrity and oversight bodies where necessary.

The Bill establishes a clear and proportionate compliance framework. Under this framework, CEOs will be required to submit an annual compliance assessment report to the Regulator, using an approved form, by 31 October each year.

The Regulator will also have the power to investigate suspected non-compliance with the Code. This may arise, for example, through complaints, referrals from municipal monitors, or other evidence coming to the Regulator’s attention – including issues identified through a council’s own self-assessment.

Where concerns arise, the Regulator may issue an ‘FJC notice’ to the CEO, setting out the alleged non-compliance and providing an opportunity to respond.

Following an investigation, the Regulator must determine whether there has been compliance with the Code and issue a notice of decision. Where non-compliance is found, that decision will be made public, supporting transparency and accountability across the sector. The Regulator may also request information and documents from councils at any time to assess potential non-compliance.

Importantly, the framework is not solely enforcement focused. The Regulator will also play an educative role, working with councils and CEOs to support compliance and continuous improvement. Where appropriate, matters may also be referred to other relevant regulators.

Local government will be closely consulted in the development of the Local Government Fair Jobs Code. Following the making of the regulations, councils – and in particular CEOs – will be provided with adequate time to prepare for, and comply with, the requirements of the Code before it comes into effect. Councils will also be supported the provision of detailed guidance material and supplementary resources to assist with compliance.

The Local Government Fair Jobs Code is about ensuring that every local government worker – no matter which of Victoria’s 79 councils they serve – has a fair go. It is about providing greater security and stability in employment and supporting a workforce that delivers essential services to communities across this state.

Amendments to the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to provide for higher differential rates

The Bill also amends the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to provide Melbourne City Council greater flexibility in its differential rating provisions.

Currently, the highest differential rate Melbourne City Council can set is no more than twice the lowest rate. The Bill will enable Melbourne City Council to declare a higher differential rate that is no more than four times the lowest differential rate while retaining the use of Net Annual Value as the valuation base for rates.

This reform responds to concerns raised by the Melbourne City Council about the number of vacant or derelict properties within the city due to their unsightly appearance and which become a target for vandalism and vagrancy. The number of properties considered by Melbourne City Council to be of specific concern as of 2026 is approximately 20 to 30 in number. The proposed differential rate settings are intended to address this issue by incentivising these property owners to develop or take other action to improve the property.

The Bill will deliver stronger communities through better governance, more secure local government jobs, and a capital city that is vibrant, liveable and safer for all Victorians

This Bill responds to a clear and demonstrated need for reform. The findings of independent bodies revealed real harm done to communities by governance failures and corruption in local government, and it is incumbent on the Government to act on those findings.

More broadly, this Bill reflects the Government’s commitment to supporting those who support our communities – those who deliver essential local services across Victoria’s 79 councils.

It also establishes a fair, practical and enforceable Local Government Fair Jobs Code, to be developed in partnership with councils, unions and workers, to promote secure, safe and fair employment practices across the sector.

Together, these reforms build on and strengthen the governance and conduct framework in the Local Government Act, ensuring that robust systems are in place to support integrity, prevent corruption and ensure councillors are representing the interests of their community.

The reforms reinforce the Government’s broader commitment to ensuring local government workplaces are safe, secure and fair, where compliance with employment, industrial relations and workplace health and safety obligations is standard, and best practice is always part of the culture.

Victorians deserve councils they can trust. This Bill strengthens that trust by putting in place the legislative framework to enhance transparency, integrity and fairness in local government.

I commend the Bill to the House.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:04): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Thursday 2 July.