Wednesday, 13 May 2026

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:52): I move:

That this house notes that:

(1)   local government reforms passed in 2020 established a requirement that each council adopt its own councillor code of conduct and associated processes, provided they were consistent with the ‘standards of conduct’;

(2)   reforms passed in 2024 replaced this requirement by imposing a model councillor code of conduct to all councils and limiting the scope of internal resolution procedures;

(3)   during debate on the 2024 reforms Minister Blandthorn expressed a hope that it would lead to fewer frivolous cases;

(4)   frivolous and vexatious cases are still going through the internal arbitration process, relying on external independent arbiters at significant cost;

(5)   despite section 5 of the model councillor code of conduct stating that it is not intended to ‘limit, restrict or detract from robust public debate of issues in a democracy’ it has had this effect;

(6)   robust political debate is critical to ensuring that issues of public concern are subject to discussion and consideration in our democratic institutions;

and calls on the government to review the model councillor code of conduct and associated laws and regulations to ensure that councillors are free to express opinions and challenge ideas and policies without being subjected to lengthy arbitration processes.

As members of Parliament we have significant freedom of speech – in fact far greater freedom of speech than the average citizen. We are covered by privilege for things that we say in this place. In my experience I have been very careful on the rare instances where I have exercised that privilege so as not to abuse it, and I have spoken to many other members of Parliament who feel the same way. The reason that freedom of speech is really important for members of Parliament is because we are elected to call out issues and in fact we are expected to call out issues. We are expected to call out corruption where we see it. We are expected to state whether we agree or disagree with the government or with a proposal by a crossbencher and whether we agree or disagree with the opposition or with things that are happening in our society that are significant to our constituents. We are expected to say those things. Many councillors who are elected to local government in fact have stood because they were not happy with the council or have stood because they saw problems with the council, and what they find after they have been elected is that in many cases they are effectively gagged from talking about these issues.

I do not claim that this is an intentional feature of the system. I note that in the debate on this when the last local government bill was put through in 2024, Minister Blandthorn herself said she hoped that it would reduce vexatious or frivolous complaints, so I think that the government actually does not want these frivolous or vexatious complaints happening. But nevertheless, it appears that the operation of the system at the moment is having that effect.

I will go through a few examples. One of the examples is of Cr Barker, who is actually in the gallery here today, from Surf Coast shire. The council put out a media release stating that a number of people came to an event; I think they claimed it was about 2500 people. Cr Barker stated publicly that he queried that number, and there was discussion about what the correct number was and that sort of thing. It seems a fairly tame sort of criticism of council to question a number, but nevertheless, he was investigated, had to face an independent arbiter and was suspended from council for one month. Cr Hughes from Frankston council was a fierce advocate for lower rates for ratepayers – fair enough – and his public criticism of the high rates of Frankston council and their restrictive social media policy for councillors led to his regular appearance before an independent arbiter.

Cr Rowe was investigated by an arbiter for not clapping on the election of the deputy mayor. Cr Martin was investigated for accidentally bringing and then not drinking alcohol to an outdoor movie screening that he did not realise was alcohol-free. Cr Conlan was found to have engaged in misconduct for publicly stating that he thought it was shameful that some other councillors left the chamber before a debate on a Palestine motion, and Cr Kellander has had to defend her political speech several times before an independent arbiter. As you can see, these restrictions on speech through complaints that end up with the arbiter are not restricted to one side of politics at all. They happen left, right and centre depending on the local council.

My concern here – this is why this motion is so important and it is so important that we fix this – is that councils are responsible for the management and distribution of billions of dollars in services. Some of these are really essential, you know, like collecting the rubbish and all these other things that people think are not very interesting but actually are really essential things that need to be managed well. We know from history, since my time in this place, that there has been corruption at councils, there has been misconduct and there have been poor decisions, frankly, made by councils. Even when there is not misconduct or corruption, councils sometimes make poor decisions – either through the councillors themselves or through the council operations and staff. That is why it is so important that councillors have the ability to call this out. They should have the ability to call out when they think that something’s gone wrong, when they think that the council is doing something wrong or when they think there is some sort of corruption or something happening.

But the problem that we have is when councillors are pulled up for such tiny things, such as some of these examples here, and I am sure we will see many more examples coming after this debate, they are terrified of saying anything publicly because they do not want to get suspended from council. They do not want to get dragged in for investigation by these arbiters. When they get pulled up for such small things, imagine how timid they must be when faced with calling out something really serious. That is my concern here. I think that when people vote for councillors and elect councillors, they expect them to call out stuff that is going wrong. If they see corruption, they expect them to call it out. If they disagree with the council’s decisions, they expect them to say so. And if they disagree with their fellow councillors, they should be able to say what they think of their decisions.

Clearly that is not the way that the system is operating at the moment, so I think that it is very important that we fix this. The regulations under the act have a clear statement. Section 5 of the model councillor code of conduct states that the code of conduct is not:

…intended to limit, restrict or detract from robust public debate of issues in a democracy.

But that is not what is happening, and I think that we need to do something here. I am not being prescriptive in this motion on what I am actually saying should be done, but something needs to be done to ensure that section 5 of these regulations for the code of conduct is prioritised so that councillors do feel empowered to say what they think is right, say what they think is the truth and call out things that they think are important for the people that elected them to do their job.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:59): I rise to make a contribution on Mr Limbrick’s motion. Mr Limbrick is always consistent, so I thank him for his interest in this matter. It is about free speech, and he is advocating for or raising concerns in regard to various councillors who have, I guess, come in for attention under the councillor code of conduct who are elected in various local government authorities. I guess the essence of what Mr Limbrick is arguing is that there should be some more appropriate balancing of councillors to be able to express their views as they are often representing the views of their communities in regard to these matters.

The motion goes on to talk about various things that have happened and how reforms were passed in 2024 which involved a model code of conduct. There was a further debate on that motion, which the government was hoping – Minister Blandthorn was the minister at the time – would lead to fewer frivolous cases and the like.

Before I came into Parliament in this place, I did try and nominate to run for local government. What I can say is that my experience, even as a candidate, I found particularly bruising. It was particularly around the interactions with some other councillors and the way that other councillors can treat each other. In my current role I have the benefit and opportunity to interact with a range of councillors from a range of councils across my region, and I have found that most of those experiences have been pretty pleasant. But that is also because –

Members interjecting.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Sorry Acting President, I –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I will ask that conversation in the chamber be kept to a minimum. I will count myself in that too. Ms Terpstra can continue.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Sorry, I could not hear myself speak. I guess the thing I was alluding to is that most of the interactions I have had with councillors in my official role as a government MP have been reasonable, normal and pretty nice. But being a candidate and being in a different position, I did note that there was quite a lot of hostility. I think the nub of it is this: as somebody who works in this environment, this environment can be a pretty hostile environment as well, but we all get to represent the views of our constituents, and we can argue those views and talk about them openly. We have the benefit of parliamentary privilege. What Mr Limbrick is trying to highlight is the tension that is there in the councillor code of conduct, which he believes is a brake on freedom of speech.

I want to point out a couple of things. I am not going to go to all the detail that is in the code of conduct, but I do support local government having a strong councillor code of conduct, because my experience as a female candidate, and as a candidate more broadly, was that some of the behaviour that I was subjected to was pretty ordinary. We should have the right to argue points, but there are also ways in which arguing points can be exploited and used as microaggression. For example, you might be in a position where you are arguing some policy thing at a council meeting, whatever it is, and you express your view. But when you repeatedly express it and you raise your voice and become argumentative, the behaviour that goes along with that argument is not appropriate. I guess my point that I am trying to make is that you can argue your point, but often it is the way in which you argue it, right?

I am not suggesting for a minute that the examples that you have raised, Mr Limbrick – I do not know of them personally, so I am not going to speak to individual examples; I can only speak to my own experiences. For example, if you continually raise, say, with a CEO or a council officer, a policy that is something you are saying your constituents need or want and raise it one, two, three, four, five times after being told that that is not going to be something the council is getting behind at this point in time, to continually argue it is argumentative, unhelpful, unproductive and unprofessional, and therefore it is not respecting the decision of the council. Those sorts of things can also be seen as microaggressions and create a hostile work environment. Vexatious, repetitive arguments and arguing around points where you will not just accept the decision that has been made are not helpful.

Whilst Mr Limbrick did talk about some examples, when you look at them in isolation, they do not seem problematic. However, what I will say is that context is everything, and you cannot just bowl up something without having the context around it, because sometimes facts present and you think, ‘Well, yes, what’s the problem with actually looking at something or making a point?’ Again, context is everything. I have seen examples even in this chamber and in working on committees with people – again, the behaviour is terrible – where someone will not accept a decision of a committee chair when they are in a hearing, for example, or where people might bowl up questions that are not in keeping with the terms of reference. Someone would repeatedly ask for meetings every day, which is not consistent with, for example, the rules around no surprises and how you should have something on the agenda. But these things were constantly bowled up, and these things do create an inappropriate action on the part of that person to then undermine the chair and put the chair under pressure.

So again, you will not find anything written down about that, and it points to what I am arguing now, which is about context. Often people will exploit these loopholes, if you like to call them that for want of a better term, when there are no particular rules around how somebody might present themselves, and someone will do this. So arguing something repeatedly, not letting somebody finish their point without interrupting them, talking over somebody – these are all things that go to creating a hostile work environment. Again, I go back to the point of the motion, which talks about a code of conduct. There needs to be some kind of framework to guide councillors about their behaviour. I accept Mr Limbrick’s point of view that he says that this is a brake on freedom of speech; it is not intended to do that. What it is intended to do is to guide councillors about appropriate behaviour when they are fulfilling their role as councillors. That is why you have the inspectorate and arbiters and that who will look at the facts and particular circumstances and take all of those things into account and then make their determination.

I understand that sometimes a person who is forcefully arguing something can get carried away in the moment and raise their voice. I personally do not have a problem with that. I do not think if you are raising your voice to make your point that is a problem; however, if it is directed at someone directly or if you swear in a speech and you are swearing at someone, these things can be interpreted in a particular way that can be harmful and hurtful. So again, context is everything. I cannot reiterate that enough: context is everything. It is unpleasant for everybody to have to go through these sorts of investigations, whether you are the person who is on the receiving end of it or somebody who has to give evidence in it. Nobody likes having to go through these sorts of things. It really is about trying to provide guidance for councillors in how they conduct themselves, because we did go through a period where there were lots of disagreements and disputes between councillors on councils. So really the intention of it is to try and provide a better environment.

Also there are issues around health and safety. I know there have been examples of where people have been asked to not attend meetings and all those sorts of things because of the environment. So it is about trying to understand each other and what is actually trying to be achieved. But at some point, too, sometimes a councillor or whoever it be might just have to accept that if the answer is no, that is the answer, and continuing to argue the point does not help you. It just means you are being a pest and irritating. Those are the things you might have to wait another term or whatever it is to get. When things change, the policy changes, and you might be able to get whatever your point of view is across the line at a different time, but pestering somebody who is a decision-maker is not really the right thing to do. Again, it is about trying to get people to comply with rules or frameworks. The intention is not to have a brake on free speech. There are other examples like Mr Limbrick talked about: having alcohol at an alcohol-free thing. That is not technically about free speech, is it? It is just maybe you did not understand the rules, I do not know, or it was not explained, I do not know. But again, I defer to whoever the arbiter is or whoever the investigator is that is charged with looking at these particular incidents.

In my experience I have worked in investigating things. I have investigated lots of things in my time as a lawyer. In all sorts of things there are a lot of facts and circumstances that need to be weighed appropriately and then a determination is made. I understand a person may not agree with it, but most often they will have the opportunity to have a say. Whenever a determination is arrived at, you get a right of procedural fairness and natural justice to respond to anything like that. And the thing will land where it lands. Sometimes that is not a very comfortable space for people. Nevertheless, I think these are important reforms. It is important to have guidance for councillors in the way that they conduct themselves. I will leave my contribution there.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (11:09): On behalf of the opposition I am pleased to support this timely and important motion moved by Mr Limbrick. Let me start with a simple proposition: councillors are elected by their communities to represent them, to argue firmly, to advocate fiercely, and in doing so councillors might sometimes offend. I would hope that causing offence is not the goal, but it can happen in the cut and thrust of politics. Frankly, it is what happens in this place every single sitting day. Take it from me: I have been slammed by those sitting opposite on several occasions, and I have certainly not held back. But we do not take things personally. Why? Because it is our job to defend and advance the interests and values of our constituents. That is the nature of representative democracy.

As part of the 2024 reforms, a single mandatory statewide model code of conduct was imposed on all 79 councils, replacing locally drafted codes. What we have seen through the current code is a gradual, systematic chilling of democratic expression at the local government level. I asked several pointed questions during the committee stage of the bill, about the lack of consultation, the cost of mandatory training, the overly broad definition of serious misconduct, the costly appointment conduct panel members and the minister’s power to suspend councillors. As alluded to in Mr Limbrick motion, I asked Minister Blandthorn whether this legislation would reduce frivolous complaints. This was the minister’s response:

The clear intent of the bill is to both clarify the code of conduct and also provide training in it. It would be anticipated, and hopefully found to be the case, that greater clarity around that and greater training in that would indeed lead to less frivolous cases, I would hope.

I am sorry to say, Minister, that hope is not a policy, and on the evidence before us today that hope has not been realised. We are still seeing cases work their way through the internal arbitration panels. It demonstrates that the code is being weaponised by some councillors to settle petty scores against their opponents. Let me give you some examples. Cr Danny Goss of Baw Baw shire was suspended for a month, in part for publicly calling on council to stick to its remit and stop putting up notices of motion about foreign conflicts. Cr Paul Barker from my region, who is in the gallery today, was also suspended for a month. What was the so-called offence? Questioning council-reported crowd numbers at a truth-telling event and criticising the handling of a council meeting where petitions relating to Australia Day were presented late. Cr Barker is now fighting to clear his name in the Supreme Court – a major test for this code.

What is actually in it? As this motion points out, section 5 says the code is not intended:

… to limit, restrict or detract from robust public debate … in a democracy.

Yet clause after clause does exactly that. Clause 2(1)(b) prohibits behaviour:

… that intentionally causes or perpetuates stigma, stereotyping, prejudice or aggression against a person or class of persons …

Clause 2(1)(c) bans so-called ‘discrimination or vilification’. While I am all in favour of treating people respectfully, these terms are not properly defined. They are excessively broad and could encompass legitimate criticism of ideological positions or state government policy. Clauses 2(1)(d) and (e) effectively require councillors to actively support their council’s approach to issues like gender and Indigenous affairs. It makes you wonder: if a councillor opposes men entering council-owned women’s spaces, will they face suspension? What if they oppose the government’s treaty? Will that councillor also be suspended? These provisions go beyond regulating conduct, they compel alignment with a far-left ideology of the government and their agents. They tell elected representatives what they must think and what they can and cannot champion. This is not the purpose of local government democracy.

Councillors are not bureaucrats implementing state policy, they are elected representatives. Their communities send them to council chambers with mandates that may well include challenging the fashionable orthodoxies of the day, and they should not have to fear a code of conduct complaint every time they do.

Unlike my opposite number, both current and former, I have travelled the length and breadth of this state. I have met with hardworking councillors from Warrnambool to Wonthaggi and everywhere in between. These councillors are deeply critical of the current model councillor code of conduct and are concerned, very concerned, about the impending model governance rules. Councillors do not want it, and their communities do not benefit from it. It distracts councillors from the work of governing. It drains council resources on legal processes, and it deters good people, people with courage and ideas, from running for council in the first place. The government should fix this code. It should ensure that councillors can express opinions, challenge ideas and hold robust debates without fear of lengthy arbitration processes. I have long said that politics is about the contest of ideas, and our councils – our most accessible democratic institutions – must engage in that contest to drive necessary change. This state government, this ideologically driven Labor government, should not be telling people – elected representatives – how they can think, how they must act, how they cannot question, how they must not challenge any orthodoxy, whether it is from the bureaucrats within the council or from each other. They should be encouraged to engage in free and robust debate. Likewise the constituents, the ratepayers of every council, should have the opportunity to question their representatives. They can chuck them out in four years time, just as they can chuck us out.

Thank you, Mr Limbrick, for bringing this motion forward. Thank you for highlighting what is so wrong about what is happening in local government at the moment, where the politicisation of these rules is a challenge to democracy. I commend the motion.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (11:17): The Greens will be supporting this motion today. However, that support is qualified because while we feel that the code actually requires strengthening, we also feel that there are a broader range of issues that need to be dealt with in relation to the application of the code. We may not agree with some of the examples that have been provided about individual councillor cases. I am sure we could argue about whether each individual case did actually constitute a breach of the code of conduct or not, but perhaps that is the very point. The code of conduct and its enforcement fail to provide clarity, consistency and fairness, and therefore it is not fit for purpose. As democratically elected representatives, councillors should be able to engage in robust political debate, which should include, for example, being able to ask questions of council officers and raise concerns. It should include being able to put forward a notice of motion. It should include being able to criticise the state government. But debate should always be respectful, and councillors should not be subjected to bullying, discrimination or other forms of intimidation by other councillors. Further, the code should support good governance and help to instil community confidence in councils and their decision-making.

The changes made by this government in 2024 to the Local Government Act 2020, through a bill which, for the record, we opposed, were justified by this government on the basis that they would reduce the number of frivolous cases but also create stronger protections for councillors experiencing bullying and discrimination. Since then we have seen not only inappropriate application of the code, which might be described by some as frivolous use in some instances, but also a total failure of the code to protect councillors from discrimination and bullying. The recent Victorian Local Governance Association census evidence shows that 48 per cent of women councillors experienced bullying by another councillor, and 22 per cent of men, yet 51 per cent of women councillors say arrangements to deal with inappropriate behaviour from another councillor were either not in place or were ineffective.

One of the key issues that has been identified by many councillors I have spoken with has been the fact that under the 2024 arrangements mayors are given extraordinary protection from having to comply with the code of conduct, instead being effectively given the final say over whether the code of conduct has been adhered to. This means that if a mayor themselves happens to be the perpetrator of bullying or has otherwise breached the code of conduct, there is very little recourse. I am increasingly hearing stories of mayors who are preventing other councillors from doing things like moving a notice of motion, moving amendments or even making contributions to debate. That is basically blocking councillors from doing the job they were democratically elected to do, all under the guise of supposed code of conduct breaches. At the end of the day the mayor is just another councillor, and the same rules should apply to them too.

Further, code of conduct complaints can only be lodged covering a specific instance that has occurred in the last three months, meaning that persistent patterns of behaviour may not be captured. Behaviours like bullying, failure to comply with the Gender Equality Act 2020 or being disrespectful, prejudiced or biased, which are all part of the code, often occur as part of a pattern, and the three-month rule stops councillors from being able to provide the context that is often necessary to rule fairly in a case. When a complaint is made under the code of conduct, despite the 2024 changes many are still essentially going straight to arbitration. They are not being dealt with by the councils in the first place. And once the matter ends up in arbitration, what happens next seems to be pretty arbitrary.

Arbiters’ rulings and sanctions have been inconsistent across cases, creating uncertainty for councillors and often disproportionate outcomes. The parameters of an arbiter are not well defined. For example, the rules governing them state that they are free to make their own judgements, they are not attached to or explicitly linked to any other acts, such as the Gender Equality Act or the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, and there are also no guidelines and there is no transparency around how they choose from the suite of penalties available to them. Further, things like whistleblower protections and legal restrictions do not apply to the arbitration itself, only to an appeal, which can lead to some odd situations – and I have heard of things like illegally obtained evidence, like a recording of a conversation without consent, being accepted as evidence by an arbiter. Finally, the appeals process, which was changed in 2024 from VCAT to the Supreme Court, is extremely costly. This was one of the many reasons we opposed the 2024 bill. The changes make the appeals process financially out of reach for many councillors, starting at a minimum of around $5000 and ranging into many tens of thousands of dollars, at the cost of the applicant. While this was intended to reduce frivolous appeals, this actually leads to appeals only being able to be sought by those financially able to do so.

These are just some of the many problems with the current Local Government Act that need to be addressed, but I have very little faith that this government is going to do so. I think this state government would actually prefer to have administrators run councils like boards and act on the state’s direction, rather than being democratically elected levels of government in their own right. They have shown this time and time again: they do not respect local government. We see it in the way that they starve them of funding while pushing more and more responsibilities onto them, only to turn around and use councils as scapegoats when any issue arises. We see it in the way they are eroding councils’ role in the planning process, creating planning scheme amendment after planning scheme amendment, yet continuing to falsely blame councils for the housing crisis. We see it in the way they completely ignore sector feedback when they introduce changes to the Local Government Act yet pretend to care about rates of bullying, particularly of women, and are appointing more and more monitors for supposed governance failures. But councils are not boards, and nor should they be run like them. The whole point of having democratically elected representatives is to ensure that the community can directly shape the decisions that are made to deliver for their needs. Those democratically elected councillors should be enabled to do their job properly. That means being allowed to engage in robust but respectful debate while also being protected from bullying and discrimination, and I do not believe that that is currently the case.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:24): I rise to speak on Mr Limbrick’s motion today in relation to the model councillor code of conduct. Before I speak on what the code was designed to do, I think it is worth taking a step back to understand why changes to local government conduct frameworks were made in the first place. In 2023, IBAC tabled its Operation Sandon special report to the Victorian Parliament, which followed investigation into the allegations of corrupt conduct involving councillors and property developers at the City of Casey. In the same year the Local Government Inspectorate’s chief municipal inspector launched their own-motion examination into the efficacy of the existing councillor conduct framework. The earlier local government culture project also examined factors influencing culture and conduct across the sector. Taken together, these findings highlighted serious areas of improvement across Victoria’s local government sector. These included the need to strengthen councillor conduct frameworks, better manage conflicts of interest and improve ethical culture to ensure that community interests remain paramount.

The government, in response, has made changes in legislation to reflect these findings, showing our commitment to ensure accountability in local government and to make sure that councillors are serving the best interests of their communities. It is in that context that the model councillor code of conduct must be understood. When the Local Government Act 2020 was introduced, one of its central purposes was to establish a system through which the behaviour of elected representatives in local government is managed. It was this legislation that created the councillor conduct framework, an entry point to deal with misconduct complaints. This framework established the arbitration process before the introduction of the model code of conduct. The Local Government Amendment (Governance and Integrity) Act 2024, passed in June 2024, enabled the creation of a uniform model councillor code of conduct in regulations. The subsequent Local Government (Governance and Integrity) Amendment Regulations 2024 were developed in October 2024 to prescribe the model councillor code of conduct. Once introduced, the model code of conduct created a uniform standard of governance applicable across all Victorian councils. Every councillor across Victoria’s 79 councils, from Melbourne’s inner suburbs to regional Victoria, would be held to the same standard of conduct. This brought together a united standard, ensuring that all councillors were held to account.

The code goes beyond simply setting standards of behaviour; it also sets out a number of key obligations. For instance, councillors must act with integrity, exercise reasonable care and diligence and take reasonable steps to avoid any action which may diminish the public’s trust and confidence in local government, including ensuring their behaviour does not bring discredit upon the council. They must also not deliberately mislead the council or the public about any matter related to the performance of their public duties. The code restricts councillors making council information publicly available when doing so would be contrary to the public interest. Councillors must also refrain from making public comment, including to the media, that could reasonably be perceived to be an official comment on behalf of the council, unless they have been authorised to do so by the mayor. Additionally, councillors must not in their personal dealings with councils, as ratepayers and planning applicants or as a recipient of a council service, expressly or impliedly request preferential treatment for themselves or any other person connected to them.

Under this framework a breach of the code of conduct will be considered misconduct and will be grounds for an internal arbitration process. These obligations were designed to establish a baseline standard of conduct across the Victorian councils. They help ensure that councils act in the best interests of the communities they represent, ensuring that local government representatives remain accountable, and to protect both councillors and those affected by genuine misconduct. Since its activation there have been a few cases where councillors have been referred to the arbitration process with an alleged breach of the model councillor code of conduct. Local government, like every level of government, has the foundational role of representing public interest. Codes of conduct and dispute resolution processes exist to support that role, which is to ensure respectful engagement among elected representatives and to maintain public confidence in our local democratic institutions.

As a councillor in local government, you are held to a higher standard of conduct as you are a representative of your community. It is also the right of every Victorian to expect a high level of governance and integrity standards from their councillors. Public confidence in local governance is an important part of ensuring that our councils run smoothly and serve their communities well. Therefore it is important that councils are held to the strict guidelines that maintain standards of conduct expected by their communities and, most importantly, these codes of conduct exist because local government sits closest to the community. It is important to bear in mind that the abuse of that proximity, whether through self-dealing, deception or the misuse of confidential information, can cause harm to people in the community.

This motion suggests that the code of conduct has contributed to frivolous arbitration matters. However, the arbitration process was in place before the model councillor code of conduct was introduced.

The arbitration process was set up as under the councillor conduct framework as the entry point to deal with complaints of misconduct. The framework, which provides a hierarchy for the management of the councillor misconduct issues, was established under the Local Government Act 2020. This timeline provides important context, because it highlights that the premise of the initial motion is flawed. With less than two years since its implementation, there has not been enough evidence to necessitate its review. There is no evidence to support that the model code of conduct has created more cases, rather the opposite. The number of arbitration decisions, based on the published data, suggests that the volume has been lower than what was there before, directly contradicting the basis of this motion.

The arbitration process was designed to provide an early mechanism for less serious forms of councillor misconduct. This was intended to ensure concerns can be addressed before escalating into more significant governance issues. Whether the conduct affects council staff, fellow councillors or the broader community, misconduct can undermine confidence in local government institutions. Under the framework established by the Local Government Act 2020, applications for internal arbitration are heard by the independent arbiters appointed through the principal councillor conduct registrar. The independence is an important safeguard within the process, helping to ensure complaints are assessed impartially and in accordance with established procedures. Importantly, the framework also provides flexibility for matters considered more serious in nature to be referred through the appropriate channels. Taken together, these measures demonstrate that the conduct framework was designed to support consistency, accountability and procedural fairness across government. It is therefore important that any review of these arrangements be considered carefully with regard to the evidence available regarding the operation and effectiveness.

These reforms were made for a reason. The model code of conduct is working as intended to set expectations of standards for councillors. The Allan Labor government holds elected representatives of the community to a high standard of integrity. The Local Government Amendment (Governance and Integrity) Bill 2024 represented one of the most significant reforms to councillor conduct standards in recent years. It was developed through an extensive consultation with councils, peak bodies and the local government sector and built directly on recommendations from IBAC and the chief municipal inspector. Under the Local Government Act all councillors are required to complete induction training within four months of taking office and to undertake professional development training annually. Mayors and deputy mayors must complete mayoral training within one month of their appointment. This training, along with the model councillor code of conduct, creates a consistent standard of behaviour and accountability across the state.

Most recently, the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2026 introduced an array of measures to promote the integrity of local government. This includes amendments to the Local Government Act 2020 to ensure former councillors cannot be appointed to a CEO role within two years of leaving office. These reforms represent significant changes to the councillor code of conduct framework and broader government relations. These reforms to the act and associated regulations aim to support improved integrity, accountability and governance across Victoria’s 79 councils. Therefore it is important to uphold the standards for councillor conduct and good governance practices that are embedded in the model councillor code of conduct.

 Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (11:33): I too rise to support this motion, and I thank Mr Limbrick for bringing it to the house. There are certainly a lot of challenges with the state-wide model councillor code of conduct, primarily that it can be weaponised as an aspect of lawfare against those that the majority of council might disagree with such as a member of a minority on a council. If there is a majority view, someone who has a minority view can be persecuted through this process, and that should not be allowed.

Local government should be a place for free expression of ideas, regardless of where they come from. Of course we want people to debate things in a respectful way. We always go by the rule that you play the ball, not the person. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. But other speakers have spoken about, and Mrs McArthur particularly mentioned, the example of the Surf Coast Shire, where Paul Barker was suspended for a month for questioning how many attendees turned up at a council-run event.

If just questioning how many people turned up to a council-run event is enough to suspend a councillor, surely that is a red flag to show that maybe this code of conduct is not quite right. There have also been significant issues in the Melton City Council where the code of conduct has been weaponised and this has resulted in a number of court appearances. It has distracted the council and taken it away from its core focus. Perhaps that needs to be considered in light of this debate. What are we actually trying to do here? The code of conduct is there, as government members have said, to be a guide for behaviour, but it should not be used as something to direct behaviour. Common sense has to prevail. I do not think the example of Paul Barker passes the pub test, the commonsense test. The everyday person in the street would look at that and think it is just bizarre.

I want to reflect on some of the comments from Ms Terpstra. She talked about vexatious comments. Those sort of comments – who determines that? They are, by their very nature, subjective. What I might consider to be offensive or vexatious, another person might not. I understand there is an arbiter process that is available, but at what point do you consider an off-hand comment vexatious versus something which is a full-blown attack? One thing that she did say which I agree with is that context is everything. That just underscores the problem of having one approach, one size fits all, when each local council operates in a different context where different needs are obviously arising. The fact that we are talking about one overarching set of guidelines that impacts every council across the state when each council has their own different context just seems to not make sense.

She also mentioned things about the lesser aspects like raising your voice and disagreements about public policy. Those things to me are normal. I think the word she used was ‘pestering’ someone who is a decision-maker when they may not necessarily have got their way. I have seen examples where there have been legitimate requests for information that have been continually denied and a councillor has repeatedly requested those pieces of information, but has been told, ‘No, you’re a troublemaker. Please stop asking for information.’ I would hate to think that there is a situation where a councillor cannot ask for legitimate pieces of information on public and council matters, where they are denied just because they are considered a pest.

I do note Mr Berger’s comments before too. He mentioned things about misleading the public. I mean, we could talk about that in this chamber, to be fair. When the government talk about a surplus, they say an operating surplus. We say, ‘No, there isn’t. There’s a cash deficit.’ You could argue that that is misleading. The same thing applies in local government. What you consider to be misleading depends on the context that you are coming from. It is a subjective measure, and those sort of things should not be embedded into something that applies to literally every elected councillor across the state.

Another thing Mr Berger said was that a councillor should not be able to comment publicly because it might be perceived as representing council as a whole. If a councillor cannot publicly comment on their views as an elected councillor of a local government area, why are they a councillor? What is the point of being elected to local government if you cannot speak? And more so, why would you engage in the democratic process if those who elected you do not know what you think and cannot hold you accountable? It actually stops you from being an effective councillor because those who elected you cannot hold you to what you said you would do, and cannot hold you to the way you voted. I do not know how you determine how someone else in the public perceives someone’s comments as a councillor as representative of the council view or not.

I do not know how you control that. I know I have, in my personal experience as a councillor, made it very clear that my comments are my own, but you should not really have to. If you are commenting as a councillor, you are commenting as a councillor.

I do want to go to the model code of conduct as well, and I did have a look at it before. Section 2 talks about behaviours, and I will quote directly from there. It says:

A Councillor must treat others, including other Councillors, members of Council staff and members of the public, with dignity, fairness, objectivity, courtesy and respect …

Objectivity: that is a very interesting one to put in there. What is objective from one person is different, so by the fact that it is even in there, it is subjective. It is so strange to put that in there. It also includes:

… not engaging in demeaning, abusive, obscene or threatening behaviour …

I do not think anyone wants to engage in any of those sorts of behaviours, but the interpretation of what those behaviours actually are is again subjective. They are subjective tests, up for interpretation. That underscores that there is a real weakness in this model councillor code of conduct, and I thank Mr Limbrick for drawing upon this and seeking to have it reviewed. I hope that it is an independent, objective review as well, and I hope that if there is a review it looks at things like promoting the freedom for a councillor to say what they want, as the ratepayer who has elected the councillor has a right to know what their elected councillor is saying and thinking. That to me should not be a revolutionary thought. It is a basic foundation of democracy. I do not understand why that is such a controversial thing. Anyway, I commend Mr Limbrick for his motion, and I hope the house supports it.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (11:42): I rise to make a brief contribution to the motion from Mr Limbrick and advise that Legalise Cannabis Victoria will be supporting the motion. I thank Mr Limbrick for bringing this question before the chamber, and I would like to endorse most of the comments that were made by Mr Limbrick and also Dr Mansfield in her contribution. I want to say at the outset that I love local government. It is the one level of government that is immediately accessible to the community. Local governments address a range of issues that immediately affect their own communities. They speak to their communities, and they are part of their communities in an organic manner that we cannot replicate here. And yet you see them regularly treated with such a lack of respect, with a paternalism, by both major parties.

The model code of conduct was introduced in 2024 and applied from the start of that term. Prior to that it was incumbent on each council to create its own code of conduct based on the principles found in the Local Government Act 2020 and decide what its internal dispute resolution process should be. It was a good process, as it required councillors to actually sit around the table and figure out how they would work together. It was an exercise in sharing responsibility for the culture and good governance of the council. While it did not automatically guarantee good behaviour in council, it did at least afford councils the opportunity from the start to seriously grapple with the question of what makes for good governance and what makes for a healthy culture.

With an imposed top-down model in the form of the councillor code of conduct – the only thing this government seems to do well; well, the only thing this government seems to do – it is little wonder that councillors are appealing to external parties more often to adjudicate on disputes and to correctly interpret those rules, rules that councillors had no hand in writing or endorsing. There is a lot of inconsistency between arbiter decisions – and that has been discussed in the chamber already – and that is both within councils and between councils. Some decisions have been surprisingly harsh, while others have been fine and others have failed to get the point. This inconsistency erodes council and public confidence in the process. Plus, they are expensive, and most of our councils need additional costs like they need a hole in the head.

I believe the increasing use of external arbiters to resolve disputes is an obvious result of the state removing the requirement for councils to take responsibility for developing their own codes of conduct and their own internal dispute resolution processes. Local governments, as I said, are the most accessible part of our democracy and the most immediate form of local representation, but they are treated with contempt by both the parties. Local councils are not the only place, and certainly not the only level of government, where you will find racism, homophobia, sexism or corruption. They certainly do not have a monopoly on bad behaviour. Yet you would not know that if you saw how paternalistically councils are regularly treated by state governments.

Why then do they have a code of conduct imposed upon them which hampers the ability of councillors to engage in the work that they are set up to do? I thank Mr McCracken for his contribution. It was really good. Freedom of speech is a given in this place. We are protected by parliamentary privilege. Councils are shaped by and make decisions for their local communities, and like all forms of government, they should be forums for rigorous discussion and diversity of opinions. How else can we ensure that issues of public concern are given the broadest possible consideration by our representatives?

Mr Limbrick’s motion is therefore entirely appropriate. The Victorian government needs to review the model councillor code of conduct laws to ensure our local representatives are free to challenge ideas and policies without the threat of unnecessary and expensive dispute resolution, which not only dampens debate but erodes trust in local government and discourages local participation.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (11:47): I speak today on Mr Limbrick’s motion in relation to the model councillor code of conduct. I note that a good number of former councillors are making contributions, and I am certainly a former councillor. It is important to remind the chamber of how the model code of conduct came about. In 2023 IBAC tabled its Operation Sandon special report into allegations of corrupt conduct involving councillors and property developers in the City of Casey. Two councillors were found to have accepted combined benefits of more than $1 million in exchange for promoting a developer’s interests. The entire Casey council had already been sacked in 2020 as a direct result of that investigation. IBAC made 34 recommendations and the Allan Labor government accepted 32 of them. One of those was a recommendation to introduce a uniform mandatory model code of conduct, a clear statewide statement of expectations to guide councillors in their interactions with each other and with the community they serve. The Local Government Amendment (Governance and Integrity) Act 2024 passed in June 2024, and this enabled the creation of the uniform code of conduct. Subsequent Local Government (Governance and Integrity) Amendment Regulations 2024 then described the model code, which came into force on 26 October 2024.

What does this model code actually say? Some of my colleagues in the chamber have already mentioned a few elements. It has five standards in it. Section 1 is about the role and what your job as a councillor is. Section 2 is around behaviours. If you imagine what the prep classroom rules are around listening to each other, respecting each other and keeping your hands to yourself, essentially these are the same rules, except for the councillors. Then section 3 is about good governance, and most of section 3 is consistent with the ASX good governance guidelines that some of the biggest companies in Australia and around the world comply with. Section 4 is about integrity and not misleading the council or the public and not seeking preferential treatment.

Section 5 is about robust public debate, which Mr Limbrick mentioned, and it is a very important section. I think it is really important not to conflate section 5 with, say, section 3 and section 4. Since its activation there have been a small number of cases where councillors were referred to the arbitration process for an alleged breach of the model code, but the arbitration process itself was in place well before the model code. It was established under the councillor conduct framework as the entry point for dealing with complaints and misconduct, and this was part of a clear hierarchy that runs from internal arbitration for less serious matters through to conduct panels, VCAT and eventually the Supreme Court. The framework was established under the Local Government Act 2020, and the timeline provides important context. With less than two years since the model code’s implementation, there has simply not been enough evidence to justify a review. The number of arbitration decisions based on published data suggests the volume has actually been lower than what it was before. The model code is working as intended by setting clear expectations and standards for councillors across Victoria – standards that none of us would argue with, really. The system also has proper protections built in for councillors who feel aggrieved. There is a process in place where a respondent, an impacted councillor, can seek review if they are dissatisfied with an arbiter’s decision. It is open to any councillor to obtain independent legal advice about their rights, and it is open to any person affected by an arbiter’s decision to seek judicial review with the Victorian Supreme Court under the Administrative Law Act 1978. These are not hollow assurances.

A conduct framework is not the problem in these cases. I had the privilege of serving as a Warrnambool city councillor for 12 years, two of which I was the mayor. I know what it is like to chair a meeting, and it is pretty easy to recognise disrespectful behaviour and note the difference between disrespectful behaviour and vigorous, robust debate. In fact that is exactly what we have in this chamber on many occasions. They really are not the same thing. Passionate disagreement is democracy. Bullying a colleague is not democracy. Challenging a policy is democracy. Harassing a staff member is not. Checking the probity of a commercial process is the job of a councillor. Leaking commercial information about that process is not the job of a councillor; in fact that is a breach not only of the council code of conduct, it is a breach of governance principles. So essentially that is the difference. If some councillors are using the arbitration process as a political weapon against opponents, the answer is better screening and faster dismissal of bad complaint applications, not dismantling the protections that genuine victims of councillor misconduct rely on. As I have mentioned, the model code originated from IBAC’s Operation Sandon report. The government accepted the recommendation for a uniform code so that councillors’ behaviour across all Victoria can be exemplary.

These standards meet community expectations. Previously every council had its own code of conduct, its own processes and its own definitions of what constituted crossing the line. That fragmented system is gone now, and what replaced it is consistent, clear and evidence based. It is part of a broader series of governance and integrity reforms that the Allan Labor government has introduced in the local government sector. But if we do check, it is also incumbent upon members in this chamber that we are complying with the parliamentary integrity commissioner and the rules that we have put in place in this chamber in terms of respecting each other, in terms of not being racist and in terms of being respectful to everybody and to our colleagues. Most of the time that is certainly what we observe.

These governance rules that lay over the top of the behaviour and conduct of councillors in Victoria are very, very similar to the governance rules that we have set for this very chamber and that other governments in other places have set for their chambers as well. Good governance does matter and good leadership does matter, and leadership behaviours influence how other people behave. Local governments are the closest tier of government to the community. The decisions councillors make and the services they deliver have a direct impact on residents’ everyday lives. That proximity is exactly why the standards we hold councillors to must be meaningful and enforceable, and therefore it is important to uphold those standards for good councillor conduct and good governance practice. For any councillor who is unclear on where they stand in relation to that, there are advice avenues available, and I will leave my contribution there.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge in the upper gallery a former Premier, Denis Napthine.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.