Wednesday, 26 August 2026

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:07): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

Introduction

In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility:

Pursuant to section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Local Government Amendment (Stability of Councils) Bill 2026 (Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Council, 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 (Principal Act) to enhance the integrity and governance standards of Councils and to make other miscellaneous amendments to that Act, and to 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.

Amendments to the Principal Act carried by the Bill include amendments to:

• Permit Councils to declare the office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor vacant, with additional procedural fairness requirements, and to provide for the chairing of meetings at which such a motion is considered

• Provide for Councillors to take a candidate leave of absence when nominating for election as a member of the Victorian Parliament,

• Clarify the operation and effect of the standing down of a Councillor under sections 228 and 229, including the suspension of Councillor conduct processes and the consequences for training, personal interests returns, allowances and reimbursements.

• Confine the automatic standing down of a Councillor under section 229 to proceedings commenced by, or on the complaint of, a law enforcement agency.

• Provide for the appointment of replacement arbiters and replacement Councillor Conduct Panel members, and for the validity of hearings where an appointment to a panel list expires

• Require the Principal Councillor Conduct Registrar to publish prescribed information about the operation of the internal arbitration and Councillor Conduct Panel processes

• Strengthen requirements for disclosing and managing conflicts of interest.

Human rights issues

The Bill engages the following human rights under the Charter:

• privacy and reputation (section 13);

• freedom of expression (section 15);

• taking part in public life (section 18);

• property rights (section 20);

• fair hearing (section 24);

• rights in criminal proceedings (section 25);

• right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 26); and

• retrospective criminal laws (section 27).

Where a right is limited, I have considered whether the limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Privacy and reputation

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.

Candidate leave of absence

Clause 13 inserts new section 38A into the Principal Act, which provides that a Councillor who nominates for election as a member of the Parliament is taken to have been given a leave of absence from the office of Councillor. New section 38A(3) requires the Councillor to give the Chief Executive Officer written notice of the nomination as soon as possible after nominating, and no later than the day after nominating.

That requirement engages the right to privacy because it obliges a Councillor to disclose information about their political candidacy. Any interference with privacy is neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The obligation is confined to the fact of nomination, which is in any event a matter of public record under the Electoral Act 2002. The notice serves the legitimate purpose of ensuring the Council has adequate notice to put acting arrangements in place, and of ensuring that the leave of absence, and the consequences that flow from it, can be given practical effect. The obligation is therefore compatible with section 13.

Reporting of conflicts of interest

Clause 26(1)(a) amends section 130(2)(a) of the Principal Act to require that a relevant person make the disclosure of a conflict of interest as soon as practicable after becoming aware of it. That amendment does not alter what must be disclosed or to whom, and does not of itself engage the right to privacy. It goes only to the timing of an obligation that already exists.

Clause 26 also inserts new section 130(5A), which provides that where a Councillor fails to comply with the disclosure obligations in section 130(2) in respect of a material or general conflict of interest, the Chief Executive Officer may notify the Chief Municipal Inspector as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the failure.

To the extent that this may be said to limit the right to privacy and reputation, the limitation is demonstrably justified. Failure to declare and manage a conflict of interest is a potential indicator of an integrity issue, and there is a strong public interest in ensuring that such failures come to the attention of the integrity body charged with investigating them. The provision is discretionary and is confined to the two most serious categories of conflict of interest, and does not of itself trigger any investigation or further action. There is no less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose.

Publication of prescribed information

Clause 21 requires the Principal Councillor Conduct Registrar to publish, on an annual basis, prescribed information in relation to the operation and use of the internal arbitration process and of Councillor Conduct Panels.

The purpose of these provisions is to provide the sector and the public with reliable information about how the Councillor conduct system is functioning. The information to be published is to be prescribed by regulation, and any regulation would itself be subject to the requirements of the Charter and to Parliamentary scrutiny. To the extent that publication could engage the right to reputation, the provisions are directed at the operation of the system rather than at individuals, and any limitation is lawful, confined and proportionate.

Relief from personal interests return obligations

Clause 18 inserts new section 134A, which relieves a Councillor who is stood down from the obligation to submit an initial or biannual personal interests return during the period the Councillor is stood down, with the obligation resuming within 30 days after the Councillor is no longer stood down. This provision promotes rather than limits the right to privacy.

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

Freedom of expression

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression. Section 15(3) provides 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.

Clause 26 inserts new section 130(2)(c), which provides that a relevant person who is a Councillor or a member of a delegated committee and who has a conflict of interest in a matter must not direct, influence or attempt to influence, or discuss the matter with, another relevant person who is participating, or is expected to participate, in the decision making process in relation to that matter.

This provision limits the right to freedom of expression. The limitation is reasonable and proportionate. It is confined to a matter in which the person has a declared conflict of interest, it is directed squarely at preventing the exercise of improper influence over other decision makers, and it is consistent with the person’s existing obligation to exclude themselves from the decision-making process altogether.

The limitation is also expressly qualified. New sections 130(9) and 130(10) provide that a conflicted Councillor or committee member may nonetheless provide information about the matter to the Chief Executive Officer, or to a nominated member of Council staff where the Chief Executive Officer is themselves participating in the decision or is conflicted. These provisions ensure that a person with relevant information is not silenced altogether, and that the prohibition does not operate to deprive the Council of information it needs. The limitation is therefore no more than is necessary to achieve its purpose and is compatible with section 15.

Taking part in public life

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.

Standing down of a Councillor charged with an offence

Clause 24 inserts new section 229(2A), which provides that the automatic standing down of a Councillor under section 229(1) does not apply unless a proceeding for the offence is commenced by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency, or the complainant is a law enforcement agency. Clause 4(2) inserts the Chief Municipal Inspector into the definition of law enforcement agency for that purpose.

These provisions substantially promote the right to take part in public life. As the Principal Act presently stands, a Councillor is removed from the office to which they were elected upon the commencement of proceedings by any person, without any evidence having been tested and without any finding having been made by a court. The Bill confines the operation of the provision to circumstances in which charges have been brought by an agency exercising an established prosecutorial discretion. The addition of the Chief Municipal Inspector to the definition of law enforcement agency ensures that proceedings brought by the sector’s own integrity body continue to attract the provision.

Declaration of the office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor to be vacant

Clause 8 amends section 23 of the Principal Act. It repeals section 23(1), with the effect that the process for declaring the office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor vacant is available irrespective of the length of the term for which the officeholder was elected. It also imposes new procedural requirements: the notice of motion must specify the reasons for the proposed motion, be signed by an absolute majority of Councillors, and be lodged with the Chief Executive Officer at least 14 days before the meeting at which it is to be considered.

Clause 8 engages the right to take part in public life because it broadens the circumstances in which a Council may resolve to vacate these offices. Any limitation is reasonable and justified. The offices of Mayor and Deputy Mayor are leadership positions that depend on the confidence of the Councillors who elect them. Where that confidence is lost, it is in the public interest that the Council be able to act.

The limitation is accompanied by significant procedural fairness protections that do not presently exist. New section 23(3A) requires the Chief Executive Officer to provide the notice of motion to the officeholder at least 14 days before the meeting, to advise them that they may respond in writing within 7 days of receipt, and to provide the notice and any response to every Councillor without delay. New section 23(3B) expressly preserves the right of an officeholder to respond notwithstanding that they are on a candidate leave of absence or have been stood down, and new section 37B(3) puts beyond doubt that providing such a response is not the performance of a function or duty of a Councillor. Clause 16 further requires that a meeting at which such a motion is put be chaired by a person other than the officeholder concerned. A person whose office is declared vacant remains an elected Councillor.

Candidate leave of absence

Clause 13 limits the right to take part in public life insofar as new section 38A prevents a Councillor from performing the functions, duties and powers of the office of Councillor from the day after they nominate for election as a member of the Parliament until 6.00 pm on election day.

The limitation pursues the legitimate objective of separating campaign activity from the performance of a public office, and of avoiding both actual conflicts and community confusion as to the capacity in which a person is speaking. The limitation is confined and proportionate. It arises only upon nomination, which is a voluntary act of the Councillor. It ends on election day, or earlier if the nomination is withdrawn, in which case section 38A(2) cancels the leave the following day. The Councillor is not removed from office and resumes their duties if not elected. Clause 11 ensures that the period of leave does not count towards the absence that would otherwise cause a Councillor to cease to hold office under section 35, and clause 17 ensures that the leave does not affect the validity of Council proceedings.

Continuity of Council leadership

Clauses 5, 6 and 7 make consequential provision for acting arrangements. Clause 5 amends section 20A(3) of the Principal Act so that the provisions governing the office of Deputy Mayor apply where the Deputy Mayor is incapable of performing the duties of that office for any reason. Clauses 6 and 7 amend sections 20B(1)(b) and 21(b) so that an Acting Mayor may be appointed, and the Deputy Mayor may perform the role and exercise the powers of the Mayor, during an initial candidacy period.

These provisions promote the right to take part in public life. They ensure that a municipal community continues to be represented by a functioning Mayoralty during a period in which the officeholder is unable to perform the duties of the office, and they avoid any hiatus in the leadership of the Council.

Chairing of meetings concerning a Councillor’s own conduct

Clause 16 inserts new sections 61(3B), 61(3C) and 61(3D), which provide that a Councillor, including the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, must not chair a Council meeting where a question before the meeting concerns whether an application should be made in respect of that Councillor’s own alleged misconduct or serious misconduct, whether an application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal should be made for review of a Councillor Conduct Panel decision in respect of that Councillor, or any other conduct of that Councillor. New sections 61(3C) and 61(3D) provide for who is to chair in those circumstances.

These provisions promote the right to take part in public life and the right to a fair hearing. They ensure that a Councillor does not preside over the conduct of business concerning their own conduct, and they protect the ability of other Councillors to participate in that business free from the influence of the person whose conduct is in question. To the extent that a Councillor is prevented from chairing a particular item of business, the restriction is narrow, is confined to the item concerned, and does not prevent the Councillor from otherwise participating in the meeting.

Prohibition on acting while stood down or on leave

Clause 12 inserts new section 37B, which makes it an offence for a Councillor who has been stood down and who knows, or should reasonably know, that they have been stood down to perform the functions, duties or powers of a Councillor. New section 38A(4) makes equivalent provision for a Councillor on a candidate leave of absence. Clause 24(2) substitutes section 229(3)(b) in corresponding terms.

These provisions do not alter who may hold public office. They give enforceable effect to a restriction that already exists in the Principal Act, and are confined to the period during which the Councillor is stood down or on leave. New sections 37B(1)(c) and 38A(4)(c) expressly preserve the person’s ability to attend Council premises in a personal or private capacity, so that a person is not excluded from the ordinary services and facilities of their own municipality. To the extent that the right is limited, the limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified.

Suspension of Councillor conduct processes

Clause 12 inserts new section 37A, and clause 13 inserts new section 38A(5), which suspend the examination of misconduct and serious misconduct applications, internal arbitration processes, and Councillor Conduct Panel proceedings while a Councillor is stood down or on a candidate leave of absence.

These provisions promote the right to take part in public life and the right to a fair hearing. They ensure that a Councillor is not the subject of conduct proceedings at a time when they are prohibited by law from performing the duties of their office and may be constrained in participating in their own defence. The suspension is qualified: new section 37A(1)(c) preserves a Councillor Conduct Panel proceeding where the Minister made the recommendation to stand the Councillor down as a consequence of that very application, and new section 37A(2) preserves the ability to make or withdraw applications and the ability of the Chief Municipal Inspector to stop consideration of a matter.

Property rights

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. The right requires that powers authorising the deprivation of property be conferred by law, be confined and structured rather than unclear, be accessible to the public, and be formulated precisely.

Allowances and reimbursements

Clause 14 inserts new section 39(5A), which provides that a Mayor, Deputy Mayor or Councillor on a candidate leave of absence is not entitled to receive an allowance for the period of the leave. Clause 15 inserts new section 40(3), which provides that a Councillor is not entitled to reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred while on a candidate leave of absence or while stood down.

These provisions engage the right to property. Any deprivation is in accordance with law. The provisions are expressed in clear and precise terms, they identify with certainty the circumstances in which and the periods for which the entitlement does not arise, and they are publicly accessible. It is not in the public interest for a person to receive an allowance or to be reimbursed for the expenses of an office whose duties they are not performing and are prohibited from performing. The deprivation is temporary in each case, and entitlement resumes when the leave or stand down ends.

Order to return allowances

New section 37B(2) provides that where a person is found guilty or convicted of the offence in section 37B(1), the court may order that the person return to the Council any allowances, reimbursements, equipment or materials received as a result of acting as a Councillor during the period they were stood down.

This provision engages the right to property. The deprivation is in accordance with law. It is confined to property received as a result of the very conduct constituting the offence, it arises only following a finding of guilt or conviction by a court, and it is discretionary rather than automatic, so the court may take account of all the circumstances. It is restitutionary in character rather than punitive.

Declaration of the office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor to be vacant

Clause 8 may be said to authorise a deprivation of property to the extent that a person whose office is declared vacant ceases to receive the higher allowance payable to the holder of that office. Any deprivation is in accordance with law, given the procedural requirements described above, including notice, reasons, a right of written response and a requirement that the motion be carried by the majority prescribed by section 23.

Differential rates

Clause 27 amends section 28(2) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to increase the permitted ratio between the lowest and highest differential rates from 2 times to 4 times where the Melbourne City Council uses the net annual value system of valuation.

To the extent that the imposition of rates engages the right to property, any deprivation occurs in accordance with law. The clause does not itself impose any rate. It adjusts a statutory ceiling within which the Melbourne City Council may exercise its existing rating powers, and those powers remain subject to the requirements of Part 8 of the Principal Act, including the requirement to specify the objectives of a differential rate and the processes governing the declaration of rates.

Fair hearing

Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.

Clauses 19, 20, 22 and 23 make provision for the continuity of internal arbitration processes and Councillor Conduct Panel hearings. New sections 144AA and 155A provide that where a person’s appointment to a panel list expires during a process or determination, the person is taken to continue to hold office until the process is concluded or the Panel is dissolved. New sections 144AB and 156A provide for the appointment of a replacement arbiter or Panel member where the original decision maker becomes unavailable, and permit the replacement decision maker to have regard to information or evidence previously provided, including any record of or evidence taken in an earlier hearing.

These provisions engage the right to a fair hearing. In my view they promote rather than limit it. Without them, the expiry of an appointment or the unavailability of a decision maker may require a matter to begin again or leave it unresolved, to the detriment of the Councillor who is the subject of it and of the parties who brought it. The provisions ensure that matters are determined by a person who remains competent to determine them.

To the extent that the ability of a replacement decision maker to have regard to earlier evidence could be said to limit the right, the limitation is reasonable. The replacement is appointed from the same statutory panel list, and in the case of a Councillor Conduct Panel, new section 156A(2)(b) requires that a replacement Chairperson be an eligible person under section 153(3)(a). The parties must be given written notice of the appointment. The provisions are permissive rather than mandatory, so the decision maker retains the discretion to hear evidence afresh where fairness requires it, and the ordinary requirements of natural justice continue to apply.

New sections 144AB(3) and 156A(3) preserve the validity of acts and decisions made before the replacement appointment. This is necessary to avoid the disruption of proceedings and does not affect any right of review.

Rights in criminal proceedings

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

Clause 12 inserts new section 37B(1), and clause 13 inserts new section 38A(4), each creating an offence punishable by 120 penalty units. Each offence is directed at a person who performs the functions, duties or powers of a Councillor while prohibited from doing so.

The offence in new section 37B(1) applies only to a Councillor who knows, or should reasonably know, that they have been stood down. Neither provision reverses the onus of proof or creates any presumption against the accused. Each element of each offence must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in the ordinary way, and all of the rights in section 25 apply to a person charged. The right to be presumed innocent is not limited.

As noted above, clause 24 promotes the right to be presumed innocent in a broader sense. Under the Principal Act as it stands, the mere commencement of a proceeding by any person, at a point when nothing has been proved, produces the immediate consequence of removal from elected office. The Bill confines that consequence to proceedings brought by agencies exercising an established prosecutorial discretion.

Right not to be tried or punished more than once

Section 26 of the Charter provides that a person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence in respect of which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with law.

The Bill creates offences in new sections 37B(1) and 38A(4) in respect of conduct that may also be the subject of the Councillor conduct processes in Part 6 of the Principal Act. Section 26 is not engaged. The internal arbitration process and the Councillor Conduct Panel process are not criminal proceedings, and a finding of misconduct or serious misconduct is not a criminal conviction. This position is consistent with the operation of the Principal Act as it presently stands.

The order that may be made under new section 37B(2) is restitutionary rather than punitive, and it may be made only by the court determining the offence, in the same proceeding. It does not involve a second trial or a second punishment.

I further note that new sections 37A and 38A(5) reduce the potential for concurrent processes, by suspending conduct proceedings while a Councillor is stood down or on a candidate leave of absence.

Retrospective criminal laws

Section 27(1) of the Charter provides that a person must not be found guilty of a criminal offence because of conduct that was not a criminal offence when it was engaged in, and section 27(2) provides that a penalty must not be imposed that is greater than the penalty that applied when the offence was committed.

The Bill contains transitional provisions in clause 25. New section 331(2) provides that the new sections 37A and 37B do not apply to a Councillor who is stood down unless the Councillor receives notification under section 228(3), or is charged with an offence specified in section 229(2), on or after the day on which clause 12 comes into operation. The new offence in section 37B therefore has no application to conduct engaged in before its commencement. New section 331(3) provides that the candidate leave of absence provisions do not apply to a nomination unless election day is on or after 1 January 2027, and the offence in section 38A(4) accordingly has no retrospective operation either.

Provisions that do not engage Charter rights

For completeness, I note the following provisions.

Clauses 1, 2 and 3 are preliminary provisions dealing with the purposes of the Bill, its commencement and the identification of the Principal Act. Clause 28 provides for the repeal of the Bill on 1 July 2028, which does not affect the continuing operation of the amendments made by it. None of these provisions engages a right protected by the Charter.

Clause 4(1) inserts a definition of candidate leave of absence into section 3(1) of the Principal Act. It is definitional and engages no right of itself. The provisions to which it gives effect are addressed above.

Clauses 9 and 10 make provision for training. Clause 9 inserts new sections 27A(5A) and 27A(5B), which provide that a Mayor, Deputy Mayor or Acting Mayor who is unable to take or complete Mayoral training because of a leave of absence, an initial candidacy period or a stand down must do so within one month after returning, after the period ends, or after no longer being stood down. Clause 10 makes corresponding provision for Councillor induction training. These provisions promote the right to take part in public life. They ensure that a person is not exposed to the consequences that flow under the Principal Act from a failure to complete mandatory training in circumstances where the failure is attributable to a period during which the person was prohibited by law from performing the duties of their office.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, I consider that the Bill is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. Where the Bill limits a right, I consider each limitation to be reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Beverley McArthur MP

Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council

Shadow Minister for Local Government

Shadow Minister for Small Business

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:07): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Statewide Treaty Act 2025:

Feedback was sought from the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl on the Local Government Amendment (Stability of Councils) Bill 2026 (the Bill). The First Peoples’ Assembly requested, and was provided with, a copy of the Bill. However, in the time provided, no advice or representations about the effect of the Bill on First Peoples was received.

Beverley McArthur MP

Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council

Shadow Minister for Local Government

Shadow Minister for Small Business

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:07): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Introduction

Today, I am doing what the government should be doing: progressing a bill that is based on evidence, not ideology, a bill that closes genuine loopholes and advances important improvements in the local government and City of Melbourne acts, all without creating more flaws and more loopholes. It amends the Local Government Act 2020 to strengthen council integrity and governance, to correct defects in the councillor stand-down framework, and to improve the operation of council governance and conduct processes. It also amends the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to increase the maximum permitted ratio between the lowest and highest differential rates from two times to four times.

What is deliberately excluded or corrected is everything in the government’s bill that is opposed by councils and ratepayers. Our key omissions relate to the government’s dodgy local government fair jobs code and regulator, the minister’s power to direct a council’s internal dispute resolution process, and the mandatory model governance rules and CEO employment framework. We believe the code is built on a false premise – that local government jobs are insecure. They are not. It is wrong for the state to be undermining workforce flexibility and service delivery in local government.

And we reject the government’s undermining of parliamentary oversight by seeking legislative power without a single draft regulation being made public. A common cry from councils is that this government does not consult with the sector when it makes law. That is not my approach as shadow minister. Views were sought from all 79 councils, from more than 600 councillors, from every key peak body, and from legal, governance, and consulting experts. Their views were clear, and I trust that this bill provides a genuine alternative for this Parliament to support.

Background

The case for local government reform is indisputable. IBAC’s Operation Sandon special report made 18 recommendations directed at council governance and corruption risk under the Local Government Act, most of which have been implemented. The Whittlesea commission of inquiry, reporting in 2025, made a further 17 recommendations, 13 directed to the Victorian government. Together they exposed real weaknesses in conflict-of-interest requirements, councillor conduct processes, mayoral accountability, and the legislative framework itself. The coalition has supported acting on those findings from the outset, and this bill is the proof of it.

I do want to say that this bill is not exhaustive. My goal is to make the act workable for the remainder of this term of government. Under a Wilson-led coalition government, we will work closely with the sector to make it even better. We will cut red tape for councils, empower councillors, and enable value-for-money services for ratepayers – all while ensuring appropriate integrity standards.

Key provisions

I now turn to the main provisions of this bill.

Mayoral and council governance

The bill improves the operation of the deputy mayor and acting mayor provisions. It extends the process for declaring the office of mayor or deputy mayor vacant, so that it applies whether the office holder was elected for a one-year or a two-year term. It does so with proper safeguards. A notice of motion must specify the reasons for removal, be supported by an absolute majority before it can be lodged, and be lodged with the CEO at least 14 days before the meeting. The office holder must receive the motion and an opportunity to respond in writing, and both must be circulated to all councillors beforehand. The office may then be declared vacant only if the motion is supported by at least three-quarters of the councillors in office – not just an absolute majority.

The bill also provides that a mayor, deputy mayor or councillor may not chair a meeting dealing with their own conduct. A mayor who has lost the confidence of the council should not be able to sit immovably in the chair. Equally, a mayor should not be removed without natural justice.

The stand-down framework

The stand-down framework this government previously introduced contained a series of oversights, and the bill corrects them. A councillor who is stood down should not be disqualified for failing to attend meetings they are prohibited by law from attending. Neither should they be penalised for failing to lodge a personal interest return while excluded from office. They should have a reasonable period after returning to complete mandatory training, for as long as that training regime remains in place. Decisions lawfully made during their absence should not be open to challenge on that basis.

The bill suspends conduct proceedings while a councillor is stood down, so a person cannot be required to answer a complaint at a time when they are barred from exercising the office. It expressly excludes private or personal attendance at council premises, because a stood-down councillor remains a ratepayer, entitled to visit a library or a leisure centre like anybody else. The government’s bill leaves the term ‘council premises’ undefined, and that is an invitation to litigation.

Candidate leave

The bill requires a councillor who nominates for election to this Parliament to take unpaid candidate leave from the day after nomination until 6 pm on election day. The government’s bill has the declaration of results as its end point, which could differ from seat to seat. A councillor in one electorate could return to duty weeks before a councillor in another, for no reason connected to anything either of them has done. Election day is a single, known, statewide date, and it is the right end point.

The stand-down trigger

Under section 229, a councillor is automatically stood down when certain proceedings are commenced against them. That provision is the government’s own. It was written into the Local Government Act 2020 by this government, and it was drafted without any distinction between a charge laid by a law enforcement agency and one laid by a private individual with a grievance. The consequence is that any person, with no evidence tested and no finding made by any court, can commence a private prosecution and remove a democratically elected representative from office.

Councillors at Hepburn Shire were stood down in exactly those circumstances, following private prosecutions brought by an alleged vexatious litigant, proceedings later discontinued by the court on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It waited several months and even floated appointing an administrator as Hepburn slowly descended into chaos. When the government finally moved to close the loophole, it did so only for the future.

Councillors who had already been removed from office would have been told that Parliament had identified the injustice done to them and decided to do nothing about it. I wrote to the minister and asked him to make the correction retrospective. I am pleased to say he relented and circulated amendments in the other place. Soon affected councillors will be taken never to have been stood down and will be repaid the allowances withheld from them.

Conflicts of interest

The bill strengthens the obligation on a councillor with a conflict of interest not to direct, influence or discuss the matter with another decision-maker. That acquits recommendation 29 of the Sandon report without qualification. It requires annual reporting by the principal councillor conduct registrar on internal arbitrations and conduct panels, acquitting recommendation 32.

On recommendation 33 we take a different route to the same destination, allowing information to be provided to the CEO and providing that the CEO may notify the chief municipal inspector of an apparent breach. The government prefers a mandatory reporting duty. Consider what that means. A CEO is placed under a legal obligation to report a councillor, with no capacity to investigate first and no guidance on handling a report that is vexatious or baseless. It transfers a question of political judgement onto the administration and blurs the very line between governance and administration that Sandon and Whittlesea told us to hold.

City of Melbourne differential rates

The bill increases the permitted differential rating ratio for the City of Melbourne from two times to four times where the net annual value system is used. On this the coalition agrees with the government that this amendment is designed to change behaviour rather than raise revenue. What changes is how that burden may be distributed, giving the city flexibility to apply a higher rate to long-term vacant property and to create a financial reason for owners to redevelop or activate sites left derelict for years.

Conclusion

This bill is not exhaustive. But it is what this Parliament can sensibly do in the time it has left. It fixes a framework that is removing elected councillors from office on the strength of a private grievance. It gives councils a workable process for dealing with a mayor who has lost their confidence, with natural justice. It strengthens conflict-of-interest obligations without dragging council officers into political disputes. And it gives the City of Melbourne a practical tool to deal with derelict property. It does all of that without a single additional dollar of pressure on the rates paid by Victorian councils, households and small businesses. It was built with the sector, and it is the better bill for it. I commend the bill to the house.

 Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:18): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned for two weeks.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for two weeks.