Tuesday, 17 March 2020

Bills

Local Government (Whittlesea City Council) Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms KAIROUZ:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr T SMITH (Kew) (14:20): I rise to support the Local Government (Whittlesea City Council) Bill 2020, which is a bill to dismiss the Whittlesea City Council. The opposition supports the government’s bill today and wishes to see this bill speedily passed through this chamber and the other place so that royal assent can be granted as quickly as possible to see that rogue and dysfunctional council dismissed forthwith.

It is a rogue and dysfunctional council, and there are too many rogue and dysfunctional councils around Victoria. It feels somewhat like a bit of a habit now: we come to Parliament and sack another council. The minister and I have a similar view on this matter, which is that if councillors are going to engage in conduct that is totally unacceptable, totally beyond the expectations of local ratepayers and residents, then they ought to be dismissed by the state government. I have, and indeed the opposition has, very firm expectations as to the role of local government, and the community is tiring of seeing councillors behaving in a way that is contradictory to community expectations.

The City of Whittlesea has been a notorious local government area for literally decades. For as long as I have been involved in politics, I can recall Labor Party factions fighting at the City of Whittlesea. The monitor’s report into the City of Whittlesea is a good document. We were advised this morning in a briefing—and I thank the government for providing me with that briefing this morning—that Mr Blacher was to present an interim report in March 2020 after he was commissioned in December last year. As it turned out, a final report was prepared by March for the council to be sacked today. I can only imagine that the reason for that was the monitor found that the council were so bad, were so far gone, that they ought to be dismissed. I hope there are no other motivations, and I have been assured that there are not. If I could quote from the monitor’s report, on page 9, to begin with, the monitor wrote:

I have come regretfully to the conclusion that there is no prospect that the mindsets and behaviours of the majority of Councillors can change. The factional—

and I repeat this for Labor members of Parliament—

The factional and personal antagonisms that have long bedevilled good governance at Whittlesea Council, whilst not openly exhibited by all Councillors, are nonetheless deeply embedded and intractable.

I refer to page 14 of the monitor’s report:

The principal protagonists appear both unwilling and incapable of finding common ground that could bring some greater measure of civility, respect and consideration to their Councillor relationships. Some Councillors have expressed dread at the thought of attending Council meetings. Another described the prospect of continuing in office as akin to being “dragged into the mud with warring pigs”.

That is quite extreme language, and I am pleased that the monitor has quoted an unnamed councillor there, because it just shows you how dysfunctional the whole place had become.

The mayoralty was described at interview by one Councillor as the “golden ticket” with a salary in excess of $100,000 in addition to the prestige of the office. There can be little doubt that the single-minded pursuit of the Mayoralty and the factional ascendancy that goes with it—

‘factional ascendancy’, I remind Labor members of Parliament—

has damaged good governance in the City of Whittlesea for much of the last fifteen years.

That is my recollection of the City of Whittlesea for my entire time, as I said earlier, in politics. The City of Whittlesea has been the battleground for Labor factional blood letting for the entire time I can recall in terms of my time in local government and indeed in politics, and it is to that point why it has taken so long for this Labor government to sack the City of Whittlesea. This should have happened years ago. It is, I think, to the regret of a lot of people in Whittlesea that they will now not have elected councillors until 2024, the next round of council elections after October this year. Had that council been sacked much earlier, there could have been an opportunity for governance reform both in the organisation and at the councillor level so that by October 2018 they could have been ready for council elections. Because the government sat on its hands—I suspect for a number of internal and factional reasons—and did not do what it should have done years ago and sack this wreck of a council, we now are in a situation where the ratepayers of Whittlesea will have to wait until October 2024 to have a say as to who sits around the council table at Whittlesea.

I would like to quote from page 16 of the report, because this is very, very serious:

In all there are currently over twenty active investigations, the majority by the Local Government Inspectorate, relating to Whittlesea Council—

20!

One Councillor, who figured prominently in my interviews with staff for his bullying and aggressive behaviours, was scheduled to appear before a Councillor Conduct Panel following an application from the Chief Municipal Inspector … for a finding of serious misconduct against him. However, he resigned …

I have made two further referrals arising from my investigations: the first to the Chief Municipal Inspector … and the second to the Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC).

There is a referral to IBAC by the monitor on an issue which has not been disclosed, and nor will it—a serious matter, clearly. It is a very serious matter of alleged corrupt conduct by someone at the City of Whittlesea referred to IBAC. Obviously we have seen the Casey debacle continuing at IBAC. Now Whittlesea is heading in that direction to be investigated by IBAC, and I just think that is a very concerning development. It is new information that has come to light today through the monitor’s report. It is good to see that integrity bodies are taking a good hard look at local government, because the community are very concerned about what they have seen at Casey and all the stories that they have heard about dysfunctional councils like Whittlesea.

I am also concerned. I have received correspondence from the mayor. I was not aware of this, but because the mayor—and I am quoting from Neos Kosmos here—took a vote for the mayoralty to help elevate her to the helm of Whittlesea council she got kicked out of the Labor Party. I mean, this is the sort of behaviour of Labor councillors that saw Brimbank dismissed all those years ago for an extraordinary period of time because Labor councillors used local government as a factional battleground. This mayor was booted out of the Labor Party for taking a vote for the mayoralty from a non-Labor member. There has been a number of disputes, and Labor’s dispute tribunal sat a number of times to deal with claims of alleged disloyalty. It is this sort of caucusing by Labor councillors across Victoria, particularly across inner Melbourne, that certainly annoys and distresses many ratepayers, because councillors are acting not necessarily in the best interests of their local communities and the council but of the Australia Labor Party; but also, particularly under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this most probably contradicts the Winky Pop decision and is most probably unlawful.

I think for Labor to be seriously considering endorsing candidates for the council elections this year, in October, and then for that level of caucus discipline to exist at a council I believe is unlawful, I believe is wrong. Labor’s Minister for Local Government, Mr Somyurek, in the other place said exactly that during the debate on the Local Government Bill 2019, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. There is no place for overt partisan party politics in local councils. Of course people come to local councils with a set of views and values. A lot are members of political parties; that is appropriate. But for that level of caucus discipline to exist on a local council, where someone gets booted out of a political party because they accepted a vote of someone not from the Labor Party to get the mayoralty I think is, frankly, wrong and bizarre. But on that, I am very happy to support this bill. I do not expect any other speakers from the opposition, and I hope that it can be in the Legislative Council this afternoon with royal assent hopefully sometime tomorrow. I thank the house.

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (14:30): It is a very grave matter to sack a council, and it is deeply regrettable that we have seen this two out of three sitting weeks. That this should come in any way as a surprise to any councillors in the City of Whittlesea simply beggars belief. That they would be so unaware that this could be a possibility given the litany of their abrogation of responsibility and failure to deliver for this disadvantaged and rapidly growing population just beggars belief. It has continued to go on.

The member for Kew, I was really pleased to hear him say that the opposition will be wholeheartedly supporting the removal of this council. Although I do take issue; he referred to the monitor, Mr Blacher, who is a very well-regarded former senior public servant who has served both sides of politics without fear or favour and was appointed by the minister to be a monitor. It seems from the monitor’s report tabled today that that was an opportunity. When the monitor was appointed, that was the warning. The minister was saying, ‘Pull your heads in, actually start working in the interests of the community and pay some attention to governance—pay attention to the fact that you’ve caused enormous disruption to your staff’. Six CEOs in five years! How anyone, let alone a councillor in the City of Whittlesea, would think this would survive the pub test beggars belief.

I did want to take up something from the member for Kew. He said he was supportive of this and he mentioned Mr Blacher and then said he hoped there were no other motivations. I think that that is an unfair aspersion on Mr Blacher’s integrity.

Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I do not mean to take up the house’s time on this, but I was not referring to Mr Blacher at all in my remarks—it was a reference to the government.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ward): I ask the member for Yan Yean to continue, referring to—

Ms GREEN: Thank you for that clarification, member for Kew. I think that was a really important inference to not have stand on the public record.

Mr Blacher’s report, tabled in the Parliament today, references a report by the consultancy firm Beyond Excellence in November 2019:

… interviewed all Councillors and designated Council staff, described:

“countless examples of a lack of professionalism by individual councillors. This covered a wide gamut of behaviours and actions, which were described as threatening and aggressive, stonewalling, shaming, insulting and manipulative, not attending or walking out of meetings, media leaks, crying and litigation to name a few. These are seen to be deliberate and menacing through to staged performances and theatrics.”

That is quoting from the Beyond Excellence report. Then the monitor goes on:

Such behaviours have been commonplace, readily observable and frequently reported in the media. They have continued unabated during the time I have been Monitor.

A couple of paragraphs on:

A number of Councillors seemed either not to understand or chose to ignore that their responsibilities did not encompass operational management and decision-making or that abusive behaviours towards staff and each other were an unacceptable breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct and normal civil behaviour. Staff reported numerous examples of how some Councillors pressured them, on some occasions abusing and swearing at them, if they did not get their way.

As the member for Kew mentioned, there are some 20 active investigations:

… the majority by the Local Government Inspectorate, relating to Whittlesea Council. One Councillor, who figured prominently in my interviews with staff for his bullying and aggressive behaviours, was scheduled to appear before a Councillor Conduct Panel following an application from the Chief Municipal Inspector (CMI) for a finding of serious misconduct against him. However, he resigned and the CMI withdrew the application the following day which dissolved the Panel.

I am not going to name that councillor, but that councillor actually chased me down the street threatening to hit me. If a councillor who had been a mayor did that to me, an elected public official, in front of children, what on earth was that councillor and others doing behind closed doors? Yet they could not even amend that behaviour when they had a monitor.

One of the other references in the report talked about strategic planning done in late November 2018. All the work that council officers had put in for a forward strategic plan about the direction of the City of Whittlesea, future directions, and the monitor says four councillors did not even attend—did not even attend—to adopt that. And then once the balance of power changed again that strategy was ignored. There was no strategy there. This council has been led by a heartless, clueless crew of clowns who have also behaved in an aggressive and appalling way.

The officers at the City of Whittlesea mostly live in the City of Whittlesea, and in my 17 years in Parliament I have found them to be incredibly professional. They have never once leaked to me anything about any councillor, despite being pressed by some of the poor behaviours over the years, until the recent change in balance of power and the appointment of a new inexperienced mayor, which then saw yet another CEO pushed out the door whilst on sick leave. So the monitor’s report says that staff morale completely collapsed and the staff were unable to do their jobs. They contacted me deeply distressed. They were suicidal. I mean, it is just unconscionable that these councillors continue not to take responsibility for their behaviours.

And what did we see yesterday? Aren’t they thinking, ‘Oh, maybe there might be an interim report; there is Parliament this week’? They were supposed to have a meeting last night to adopt the budget. This Parliament and the Parliament in Canberra and every Parliament in Australia is having to deal with an unprecedented disaster that is afflicting people worldwide at a time when every tier of government should be looking to their responsibilities and thinking how they can support their community through the COVID-19 pandemic.

This council, instead of pulling up their big girl pants and saying, ‘We’ve got to pass the budget, we’ve got to send a strong message to this community that we care about what’s happening, we care about their health status and whether or not they’re feeling safe in the middle of this pandemic’—it was a meeting to adopt the budget—they did not pull up their big girl pants and take up the baton of leadership and actually work with the officers to deliver to the community; no, they got under the doona and said, ‘Let’s cancel the meeting. Oh, we’re afraid, we’re afraid!’. But they have certainly got enough time to send off another letter to another lawyer, to send goons around to a monitor’s private house. I mean, it beggars belief. It means that you have got no respect for any principles of government.

I want to thank the staff that have put up with this over a very long period of time and I want to thank the community that have put up with this. The highest rate of heart disease in Victoria, one of the lowest rate bases per capita, and these clowns have been asleep on their watch. ‘We want a Mernda aquatic and recreation centre’. I am the Parliamentary Secretary for Sport. I pleaded with them: ‘Put in some money for planning. The time for talk is over. You can do the detailed planning, then you can submit subsequent applications through our aquatic fund, through the major stadiums fund’. But they did not do any of that, it was just talk. And then when I asked them about it they wanted to blame officers and said, ‘Someone’s arse needs to be kicked for that’, and I said, ‘No, there’s been quite enough of that’. There has been absolutely enough of that. This council should go. I want to thank the councillors that did pay attention, the Labor councillors and Cr Joseph—I am sorry that they are being sacked—but I commend this bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

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

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ward): The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.