Tuesday, 18 February 2020

Bills

Local Government (Casey City Council) Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr T SMITH (Kew) (13:58): I rise to support the bill as moved by the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, the Local Government (Casey City Council) Bill 2020, which will sack the City of Casey councillors until October 2024.

At the outset I would like to inform the house that the opposition will be supporting this bill, although we do have some reservations about the time frame. I think a more appropriate time frame would have been March 2023, a three-year abolition of elected local councillors at the City of Casey. I have been calling for the dismissal of the council of the City of Casey for months, and if Parliament sat a little bit more in Victoria this may have been achieved a lot earlier.

I was briefed this morning—and I appreciate the effort that the minister’s office went to to brief me in good time before the bill was tabled in this place—by the municipal monitor. Her report is damning. It is damning as to the conduct of all councillors at the City of Casey, not just the two who have featured so prominently at the various hearings of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission.

Interestingly, on page 4 of the City of Casey Municipal Monitor Report, I quote:

My observation is that Councillors have been more concerned about their own reputation rather than that of the City of Casey and have reluctantly taken advice to not generate more media coverage by making further statements. Despite this and advice to the contrary the Council have made some media statements that have led to more negative media coverage and community commentary and pursued the calling of a Special Council meeting for the 31 December to resolve to approve the establishment of Section 86 Special Committee to deal with non-delegated planning matters in the belief that the Committee will ensure efficient handling of planning matters and assist in restoring public confidence in the Council.

Essentially what the monitor observed and what I think all of us in this place have observed and I have certainly been on the receiving end of—I have defended myself against a number of bizarre statements from councillors both in Australia and in Cairo—is that frankly this council had lost the plot, that these councillors were living in cloud-cuckoo-land and that the councillors deserved to go, and by their own behaviour and statements should have gone a long time ago.

The number of times that the mayor or indeed Cr Aziz had a crack at me and others for calling them out on their bizarre behaviour indicated to the media, the members of this place, the minister, the monitor and indeed to their own community that they had lost the right to govern and that they should go. So I am very pleased that my call for this council to go has been upheld by the Andrews Labor government, albeit too late, and indeed by the municipal monitor.

I note that Cr Aziz, the Christopher Skase of local government, is marooned over there in Cairo. That bloke—seriously. I understand that Australia does not have an extradition treaty with Egypt. I suspect that is why he is there. This bloke needs to return to Melbourne and face the music at IBAC. I think it is a glaring hole in our legislation here in Victoria that people can abscond and leave the country and do not have to account for their own behaviour at the anti-corruption commission hearings. I think that is an absolute disgrace, and I am very happy to work with anyone in this place to fill in that hole. Cr Aziz is sitting there in Egypt—sitting by a river called denial—and I just think that all Victorians are quite rightly outraged by this bloke sitting there putting his feet up and earning a councillor’s wage.

These councillors voted to give this bloke leave. They voted to give him paid leave from his councillor duties to undertake his duties in Cairo. Heavens above! So quite rightly there is public outrage at the behaviour of the City of Casey councillors. The secretary of the Casey Residents and Ratepayers Association, Brendan Browne, said that the council:

… need to be sacked as soon as possible. The current situation isn’t in the interests of ratepayers.

My inbox has been inundated with comments from Casey ratepayers pleading that their council, which has become a circus, be dismissed, and I am very pleased that that is happening today. I am very pleased it is happening with bipartisan support across both chambers of this Parliament.

The monitor’s report goes on. It talks about the culture and behaviour of the councillors at the City of Casey, particularly the bullying and intimidation that the monitor observed. I quote:

Several Councillors I interviewed stated that they had observed or experienced ‘bullying’ by other Councillors. This alleged bullying is reported to largely comprise behaviour of exclusion, cliques, and intimidation by Councillors. The cliques centre on one or more dominant personalities—

I just wonder if there are any external personalities who are involved in this situation—

and political affiliations and result in perceptions that matters have not been properly considered by all Councillors or decisions have been made behind closed doors.

Under the heading on page 6 of this report, ‘Fear of Conflict or Intimidation’:

This unwillingness of Councillors to call out unacceptable Councillor behaviour and hold each other to account appears to be motivated by a fear of conflict or further intimidation that has enabled inappropriate behaviour to go unchecked.

Now, I only received this report formally—with all other members of this place—barely an hour ago. But it is a damning report, and it shows just how right I have been, my colleagues on this side of the house have been and now the government is being in demanding that this council be sacked. Most worryingly, given what we have seen at IBAC, is page 7. The monitor, at council meetings—and I quote:

… observed Councillors stumbling over what was required in declaring conflicts of interest and a gallery completely uninformed about the reason behind declared conflicts. This demonstrated a culture of a low-level of understanding and regard for the importance of effectively and transparently managing councillor conflicts of interest. This is despite efforts by the Administration to educate and provide just-in-time advice and the current scrutiny arising from the IBAC Investigation.

Two Councillors I interviewed stated that they suspected one or more other Councillors have had undeclared conflicts of interest but did not act on this suspicion in part because they did not understand their responsibility and how to approach the issue.

Now, what became apparent in reading the report and indeed during my briefing this morning with the monitor and staff from the minister’s office was that there was a belief that if simply Crs Aziz and Ablett were dismissed from the City of Casey all the problems would go away. Well, what this report shows me is that that is simply not the case—that there was systemic poor governance at the City of Casey. There was a culture of bullying and intimidation, a total misunderstanding of councillor roles with regard to conflict of interest and indeed a circus that failed the pub test and which ensured that ratepayers across the largest local government area in our state—350 000 people—and a growth area of significant importance to greater Melbourne had lost confidence in their local council.

So in terms of the recommendations from the monitor, Laurinda Gardner, she recommends that the City of Casey is dismissed and administrators are appointed. She was silent on the length of time, and I reiterate my concerns from the start of my speech that I think March 2023 would be more appropriate. However, I am very happy to support the government bill in this house and indeed the other place.

The term of Administration extends beyond the general elections for local government in October 2020 to enable:

• a thorough review and embedding of policies, procedures and processes for more effective decision-making and responsibilities; and

• the development and implementation of an extensive municipal wide program to develop more and diverse community leaders, greater participation in setting a vison for Casey, and more awareness and interest in local democracy, the role of Council and the responsibilities of Councillors.

Now, Ms Gardner’s report is a good report. I think that the fact that we have at least one councillor on paid leave in Egypt shows what a complete disgrace this council has become. This bloke Aziz is the Christopher Skase of local government. He should return to Melbourne immediately and face the music at the anti-corruption commission hearings, because his thumbing the nose at justice in this state has gone on long enough, and I think his local community is absolutely disgusted by his behaviour. I commend this bill to the house and hope for its speedy passage.

Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (14:08): The Greens will be supporting the bill to dismiss the Casey council, and we do share the opposition’s concerns around the lengthy period before there is actually an election in Casey. So we put on the record that our preference would be for a shorter time before there is actually a democratically elected council put back in place in Casey, but we also acknowledge the monitor’s statement that the period should extend further than the next election period.

One of the main issues that has been raised in the monitor’s report is the clear conflict of interest and the lack of understanding of councillors of declaring conflicts of interests and not meeting their obligations under the Local Government Act 1989. Of course, the monitor has been put in place because of the damning evidence that has come out of the recent IBAC investigation into Casey council.

This conflict of interest—this cosy, close relationship between property developers and elected representatives—is the sort of thing that the Greens have been warning about for many years. Whether it be through donations or other financial arrangements for elected representatives—councillors in this instance—whilst making favourable planning decisions for the developer who had provided them with that financial benefit and a failure to declare those conflicts of interest is absolutely appalling. It is just what we have been warning about for many years and seemingly a clear attempt to buy influence, particularly for favourable planning outcomes.

You know, there is a saying about the wild, wild west. Well, it is kind of like the wild south-east out there in Casey, with a developer absolutely running riot in a local council, and it is absolutely appalling. That is why we do need donations reform in this state, to make sure that it is clear that property developers cannot donate to local government candidates or to state government candidates, because it does create at its heart a clear conflict of interest, and as has been noted by the monitor that is one of the main issues. It is why she has recommended the dismissal of Casey council.

The Greens support that, and we would also like to look at not only how we can make sure that Casey council is in a position that it can actually restore and have democratically elected councillors as soon as possible but also make sure that the structures are in place for that to actually occur and that the community of the council can actually have confidence once again in its council. Clearly at the moment it does not, and that is why it is in the best community interest that Casey council is dismissed and that both houses of Parliament support this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time; by leave, proceeded to third reading.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.