Wednesday, 5 March 2025

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:55): (1487) My adjournment matter is for the attention of the Minister for Local Government. I call on the minister to review the use of Local Government Act 1989 section 224 powers and ensure the Local Laws Manual is updated to reflect limitations on these powers. Longstanding abuse of property rights by government officers has recently reached boiling point in Victoria. The Local Government Act 1989 contains provisions under section 224 which give authorised officers the power to enter any land or building in the municipal district at any reasonable time to carry out and enforce this or any other act or regulation or local law. The Local Law Manual provides guidelines for authorised officers in employing these powers. This manual was published in 2014 and is now over a decade old. On the use of section 224 powers the manual describes them as extensive and admits these powers exceed the powers of many other enforcement agencies. The only words of guidance around limitations of use are:

Powers must be exercised with caution and within authority.

It describes that authority as being explicitly not an at-large appointment.

Section 72 of the Local Government Act requires local laws must not be inconsistent with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, including protections against unlawful seizure of property and protection against arbitrary interference with family homes. Despite these guidelines, my office is receiving reports from all over Victoria describing instances where authorised officers are abusing these powers. Private property rights are being trampled on by officers entering property and confiscating cars without any notice or warrant. Chicken enclosures are being torn apart and animals seized. Abuse and intimidation by authorised officers of constituents is also commonplace. Some residents have been on the receiving end of such vile statements that I could not repeat them in here without using unparliamentary language.

These powers have been on the books since the assent of the 1989 act and are long overdue for a review. They lack any specifics around their use or limitations, both in statute and other materials. This does not align with the principles of legality and has been discouraged by the High Court of Australia in the case of Coco v. the Queen, where Their Honours said on the matter of state trespass:

Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.

It is time for the government to start respecting property rights and rein these laws.