Thursday, 10 September 2026

 Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (15:46): I am pleased to speak briefly about the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Bill 2026. I do want to thank Bev McArthur, who is the Shadow Minister for Local Government, who has done an incredible amount of work liaising and engaging with local governments right across our region, and I know that that is a big, big ask because certainly in Northern Victoria there are 28 local councils that are part of our region and many more across the state. I would ask that the amendments put forward by Mrs McArthur be circulated now, please. I do want to just make it clear that if these amendments are not passed, our side will not be supporting this legislation.

I do want to mention briefly the important role that local councils play. They are an important part of government in our state. I was part of the inquiry into the sustainability of local councils, and we heard from many of them about the challenges they face. When you look at the taxation revenue in this country, about 80 per cent is collected by the federal government, about 17, 18 per cent goes to the states and then less than 3 per cent, I believe, goes to local councils. Yet local councils look after around 80 per cent of the infrastructure in the state. So when we have local pools or where there are community or public facilities, things like sporting ovals, they are often opened by the state government, but it is then up to the local councils to maintain them. I think it is important for us to remember the important part that local councils play in our community.

We particularly see the strength of local councils during disasters. During the floods they stepped up and helped and supported the community so well, and also in the recent bushfires that we had earlier this year local councils did a tremendous job. State government, in a way, is there to lead when it comes to responding to natural disasters, but local councils are often on the ground. I just want to acknowledge the work that was done by a number of the mayors. They are the volunteers on the fire trucks as well as being strong leaders in their communities helping people. The recovery after a disaster is long term. I know CEOs of local councils. There is one in particular I am thinking of, whose family lost their home during the summer bushfires, yet they were there working, supporting the community tirelessly to help that community get back on their feet. I think that is worth acknowledging because local councils often get a lot of flak – sometimes from the community, sometimes from our state.

On the ground I do want to acknowledge those that are there to provide support and also recognise that some of our rural and regional councils cover huge geographic areas. Roads, for example, is one case: there is an extensive amount of roads that they need to maintain, and they do not have the income or the revenue streams that some city councils have. Some city councils can collect parking revenue that certainly you do not get in a rural and regional council, and yet they are responsible for such large areas and lots of community facilities. I think there are certainly challenges ahead when it comes to local councils and for those that step up in public service to contribute their time to support the local community. I do want to thank them. This bill talks about some of the reforms that the government has put forward, and I know Mrs McArthur has also put forward a private members bill which has a number of recommendations that speak to some of the challenges that local councils face. I will leave my comments there. I thank you for the consideration of the amendments put forward by this chamber.

Lee Tarlamis: On a point of order, Acting President, I bring to the attention of the house that it is Mrs McArthur’s birthday today.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I uphold that point of order. Happy birthday, Bev.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:51): I rise to speak in support of the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Bill 2026. When this bill was first tabled in the Assembly, Labor framed it as strengthening integrity in local government, going as far as to say that it acquits the outstanding items in Operation Sandon. One could be forgiven for expecting that this perhaps meant that we would finally see some of the most significant corruption risks and anti-democratic barnacles in local government tackled. Sadly, that is not the case. Instead, what we have is a bill that is a hodgepodge of random bits and pieces, largely focused on councillors running as candidates in other elections, fixing up some administrative holes and setting up frameworks for which the details will be developed at a later stage. We see this as a huge missed opportunity.

The local government sector in Victoria has been increasingly constrained by this state government over the past decade, with growing regulatory burdens and squeezed funding effectively asking them to do more with less, all while reducing opportunities for genuine local participation and decision-making in an attempt to standardise and control practice. I have said it before, but it is my view that Labor would actually rather have councils be run by state-appointed administrators – run like boards – and cut out the local democracy bit altogether. Yet for all these attempts to assert state control over councils for the last 12 years, they have shown little interest in addressing the areas where some state intervention is actually genuinely needed. The first of these is with respect to corruption risks posed by donations. It should not have taken flagrant corruption – of the literal brown paper bag kind – to expose this risk, but Operation Sandon made this abundantly clear.

Operation Sandon, the longest running IBAC investigation in Victoria’s history, found that over a nine-year period two former Casey council mayors as well as major parties and their state and federal election candidates were paid almost $1.2 million in donations and other payments by property developer John Woodman for their support. Of the many findings from that IBAC investigation, one was that political donations, and particularly uncapped donations and those from high-risk donors like property developers, presented a serious corruption risk in local government given the critical role they play in decisions like planning approvals. Despite caps being in place for state election candidates for years now, there is still no cap on the amount that can be donated to a council candidate in Victoria or the amount that they can spend. There have been numerous calls for this to change, including a motion passed by the City of Melbourne itself to increase transparency around donations and implement recommendation 13 of Operation Sandon regarding donations reform.

We do not need to look at cases of overt corruption like that in Operation Sandon to see why this is a problem. At the last council elections in 2024 in the City of Melbourne, for example, Lord Mayor of Melbourne Nick Reece received nearly a million dollars in donations, and that included tens of thousands of dollars from donors with property interests and those with pending developments. There is absolutely no suggestion that he has done anything wrong by accepting these donations. In fact it is all perfectly lawful. He has actually been an advocate for changing these laws, but it could certainly be argued that it at least creates the perception of a conflict of interest. It is this perception itself that is damaging to democracy.

It is worth noting that New South Wales has donation caps for council candidates. They also ban donations from property developers as well as tobacco, liquor and gambling entities. These bans have withstood a High Court challenge. The High Court agreed that such a ban was constitutional given the significant risks of corruption. Other states are into their next iterations of donations and lobbying laws to protect against corruption, and yet Victoria has not even started.

Premier Carroll has made it clear that integrity is a priority under his Labor government. Now, I appreciate that the change in premiership occurred while this bill was basically in midair after being drafted in the optional integrity era, and I do appreciate the constructive discussions we have had recently with the government about how this bill needs to be strengthened. Unfortunately, we were told that there is not enough time to do donations reform – and just a reminder, it has been three years since the Operation Sandon report was tabled. We moved amendments to do this during the last round of Local Government Act 2020 amendments. I stood here in this place and sent around a whole lot of amendments to implement these reforms in 2024. We had candidates from all political persuasions calling for it during the last local government elections, and in this Parliament, just within the last six months, we have updated our own state donations laws, so I just do not buy that there has not been enough time. In any case, we have actually done the work. There are amendments right here ready to go, so if Labor is now really serious about integrity, at a bare minimum they should support our amendments to introduce donation caps for council candidates that mirror those for state election candidates, introduce real-time donations disclosures and ban donations from high-risk groups like property developers.

Another area where we were disappointed not to see meaningful reform was on the City of Melbourne Act 2001. Other than a change to the differential ratings provisions, there was no attempt to address longstanding and broadly criticised anachronisms in those voting laws. For the uninitiated, the City of Melbourne is a very unusual jurisdiction globally in terms of its voting provisions and a whole range of other things. Why it needs its own act and is treated differently from every other council I suppose is a question for another day, but it has its very own set of rules, very different to other councils in Victoria and others around the country. In addition to having a directly elected mayor, they are the only remaining jurisdiction now in the whole country to have group voting tickets. In this Parliament, we have just recently been through the process of ridding our state elections of GVTs on the basis that it is fundamentally undemocratic to allow parties, rather than people, to decide how preferences are allocated. While perhaps GVTs have not been as grossly gamed in the City of Melbourne as they have been in this place, the same principles apply. Our view is that GVTs should be canned. We welcome and thank the government for the constructive discussions they have had on this issue, and while I will not speak for them, I think they also fully realise that it is no longer tenable to have GVTs in the City of Melbourne and this is the perfect opportunity to get rid of them. My dear friend and colleague Dr Tim Read, who I really hope is watching, has been a tireless campaigner to get rid of GVTs. He mentioned in his speech on the GVT bill just recently in the Legislative Assembly that getting them out of the City of Melbourne was a project for a future time. Well, that time, I hope, has arrived, and it might be a little bit sooner than he or anyone else expected.

I would argue that now is also the time – we have the opportunity right now – to address some other problems. I think Victorians would be absolutely appalled to learn that while residents in the City of Melbourne are entitled to one vote just like everyone else, businesses get two votes. That is right; a business vote is effectively weighted double that of an ordinary resident. The Greens believe that businesses and nonresident investors should not get any votes, just like they do not at state or federal elections. But surely we could all agree that one category of voter getting double votes is an absolute abomination. Plural voting was a feature apparently of 19th and early 20th century councils in different places, but it was officially abolished in Melbourne in 1969. It was reintroduced in 1993 by Jeff Kennett. Successive Labor governments have allowed this to continue, despite various revisions of the Local Government Act 1989 and the City of Melbourne Act 2001 and despite there being regular protestations from across party lines that this needs to change, this is unacceptable. This occurred as recently as 2024 when Labor, Liberal, Greens and independent candidates called for double business voting to be scrapped. In fact it might be worth noting that Labor at its state conference last year actually moved an urgency motion calling for an overhaul of the City of Melbourne Act to restore democracy and one vote, one value. Labor itself has called for this to happen.

The City of Sydney had the same provisions as the City of Melbourne, but they were removed several years ago after the government there acknowledged, finally, that it is totally undemocratic. The New South Wales local government minister at the time, Ron Hoenig – and I think this is telling – described plural voting and some of the other provisions in the City of Sydney Act 1988 as ‘something of which North Korea would be proud’. It is simple: one resident, one vote, one value. It is how democracy should work.

What compounds this ridiculous system is where businesses and nonresident property investors get automatically enrolled. This does not happen in other Victorian councils, where nonresident property owners must opt in to vote. They also get fined if they do not vote, which means it forces a lot of disengaged landlords and businesses to vote, which can outnumber and therefore reduce the relative say of genuinely engaged local residents. And when you combine this automatic enrolment with plural voting for businesses, it creates an absolutely outrageous, disproportionate corporate bias.

New South Wales, to their credit, a few years ago when they removed plural voting also removed the automatic enrolment of nonresident and business voters in the City of Sydney. The Greens today have amendments that address all of these issues. They are amendments that we have moved previously, so this is not a new issue; it is something that has been called for time and time again. I honestly cannot conceive of what justification anyone in this place could try to give to justify opposing these now, particularly not any party who genuinely professes to believe in democracy and integrity.

Moving beyond integrity reforms, a further area we felt needed to be addressed in this bill is the broken arbitration system. This chamber not that long ago debated a motion of Mr Limbrick’s that I think highlighted many of the problems that have emerged since the Local Government Act was last amended in 2024. On the bill – which, for the record, we actually opposed – at the time we were told that the changes being made to things like the code of conduct and disputes resolution process would reduce the number of frivolous code of conduct cases and create stronger protections for councillors experiencing bullying and discrimination. What the evidence since then shows is that it has actually failed on both counts. Since then we have not only seen inappropriate application of the code of conduct but also a total failure of the code of conduct to protect councillors from discrimination and bullying.

Recent data from the VLGA, the Victorian Local Governance Association, shows that 48 per cent of women councillors have 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 ineffective. What we have also seen play out is that when complaints have been made about a breach of the code of conduct, in many cases they are going straight to arbitration due to a lack of willingness of one or another party to engage in an internal mediation and conflict resolution process. One of the biggest complaints I have received from councils is about what happens during arbitration, which does seem to be pretty arbitrary. There is inconsistency in arbitration outcomes, which is a problem, because there is a sense that some decisions are unfair or unjustified. I think that was borne out in the debate that we had in here on Mr Limbrick’s motion. We believe that the legislation itself has enabled this, as it currently outlines that arbiters are explicitly allowed to make their own judgements in matters. Their decisions lack transparency. There are no guidelines or frameworks to underpin them. And again, on this point, I really appreciated the engagement of the minister’s office, and I hope that we can make some practical amendments to this bill that address this so that everyone can have a little bit more confidence in the system that there is some consistency there. We have an amendment here – I understand the government may as well – that basically ensures that there are some guidelines that are standard that arbiters will refer to when they are making decisions in councillor conduct matters.

Further, the way the legislation is currently drafted means the principal councillor conduct registrars can only consider complaints lodged about a specific instance occurring in the past three months, and I think we would all appreciate that behaviours like bullying, for instance, often happen as a part of a persistent pattern over a longer period of time. We believe that the PCCRs should be able to consider the longer term context of a complaint in order to properly judge a complaint and make a fair ruling. This is another issue that we have been pleased to work constructively with the government to address. We have an amendment, but we understand there may be a house amendment that achieves something similar to what we were looking for.

We continue to see it as problematic that there is no reasonable appeals process for councils who disagree with the outcomes of an arbiter. The decisions and penalties can be really significant. They can impact a council’s ability to participate and represent their communities, as well as their reputation. The 2024 bill removed the ability of a councillor to take any appeal to VCAT and instead left the only option as the Supreme Court. The intention was to stamp out frivolous claims, but as we have already covered, frivolity has continued. All that has changed is that natural justice is really only available to those with the deepest pockets. A Supreme Court challenge is only an option for the very well resourced. It costs a minimum of $5000 and can easily head into the tens of thousands. We agree that VCAT probably is not the best place to appeal these decisions, but there should be something else in its place. Whether it is an appeals panel or even a secondary arbiter review, there should be some sort of reasonable avenue for a decision to be challenged that does not clog up VCAT or the courts. We have had some useful discussions with the government about this, and we will seek some further commitments during the committee stage of this bill about implementing a fairer and more accessible appeals process. A system like this is stronger when people have confidence in it. If we want the community to have confidence in the councillor conduct system, then councillors need to have confidence that they will be treated fairly within it.

Turning to the parts of the bill that deal with councillors who are seeking to run as candidates in state elections, we understand why these changes have been introduced. I think it is reasonable to expect that a councillor will not use the resources of that position, or be seen to be using council resources, to further their candidacy. On the other hand, it is the democratic right of councillors to run as candidates in state or federal elections, just as it is for other citizens. Any rules requiring councillors to stand down need to be consistently applied and reasonable. The bill requires councillors to take leave when they officially become a candidate, which occurs when they lodge their nomination with the Victorian Electoral Commission. We can live with this. I think that is reasonable. It is a fairly short period of time. However, the bill sets a different bar for mayors and deputy mayors, requiring them to stand down when they have declared their intention to run as a candidate. This is a far more variable provision. Given that party preselection timelines and rules are really different, it could lead to some candidates deliberately delaying their formal announcements to avoid having to stand down. And I think what we will see as a result of this is mayors and deputies continuing in their roles, just withholding their official announcements until later. I think this is just going to create other problems that we will no doubt be back here trying to fix up at some point in the future. But we will leave that one for another day.

Regarding some of the other changes this bill makes, we have heard from councils and the local government sector that there has been a real lack of engagement. This includes legislating the adoption of model governance rules that have not yet been written. While we very much support the aims and objectives of the new fair jobs code, I have heard from many councils that they are concerned about what the details of this will look like and are sceptical – and I think rightly so, given the history of engagement with local government in recent years – that they will be properly consulted to ensure that these are workable.

One of the difficulties I think about this issue is that councils are already struggling financially, as Mrs Broad highlighted, especially in rural areas, and this is becoming existential. The success of any fair jobs code is going to depend on councils being funded properly so that they can pay their workers properly. On many occasions I have advocated in this place for an end to the rate-capping system, to end cost shifting – more and more is being put onto local government, and the state government is not paying its fair share – and to increase grants, particularly untied grants. Councils should be trusted partners of the state government. The loopholes they have to go through to access grant funding are often ridiculous and prohibitive, especially for small councils that really do not have the resources to be spending hours and hours and hours of time applying for simple grants to deliver essential infrastructure for their communities.

If there is not an improvement in the funding situation – and it is really urgent – we will not just see the fair jobs code fail to deliver everything that it should; we will actually see councils fail completely. We only have to look at the UK, where they have had a much longer period of time of austerity and rate capping and councils being starved of funds, or even over the border to New South Wales, where you have got councils applying for astronomical rate cap variations – 40, 50 per cent rate cap variations; they are really, really big. This is what happens when councils are chronically underfunded and financially hamstrung. Asset renewal and maintenance stops, so assets start to fail and services get cut. Ultimately it is communities that miss out, so it is in all of our interests that councils are properly funded.

One of the few things we really do support in this bill is the changes to section 229, which close a loophole in the existing act that created a serious threat to local democracy. This was exposed quite dramatically in Hepburn shire recently. In 2024, during the last round of Local Government Act changes, Labor removed a safeguard around the standing down of councillors. The changes meant that any councillor facing a criminal charge, regardless of whether it was initiated by law enforcement or a private citizen, would be automatically stood down and their allowance suspended. Labor amended the act as well at that time to remove two independent safeguards which would prevent the removal of an elected councillor following a criminal charge. Prior to these changes the chief municipal inspector had to decide if an application to stand down a councillor was justified and VCAT had to consider the circumstances of the charge. Those two things were removed, so the 2024 changes led to automatic standdown for any councillor facing a criminal charge, regardless of who initiated that. A private citizen was able to do that. This was identified actually in the statement of compatibility with the charter of human rights as limiting the presumption of innocence. Labor was warned about this when these changes were made in 2024.

As has now been well publicised, in March this year a private citizen paid a small fee to the Magistrates’ Court to lodge a private prosecution against the mayor of Hepburn shire, triggering his automatic standing down under these provisions. While the minister was made aware of this loophole and the need for an urgent fix not only to remedy this situation but to prevent future cases, nothing was done. Nothing was done at the time. Months later four other councillors at Hepburn shire were stood down after private prosecutions were taken out by the same individual against them. This meant five of the seven councillors were no longer able to perform their functions, rendering the council totally incapacitated. They were unable to form quorum or make any decisions, and the CEO resigned in large part due to this saga. I can tell you, having talked to many of the people affected by this, it was a really, really distressing time for everyone involved. Further, during this time the people of Hepburn shire were left without effective democratic representation. I do wonder if this had been going down at a larger inner-city council whether the government would have tolerated it for as long as they did.

Thankfully, the DPP intervened and dismissed the cases. That was something that could have dragged on for months and months and months. Thankfully, it was fairly quick. The councillors have been able to return. It really, though, should never have got to that point. There were so many opportunities for the government to introduce standalone legislation to deal with this problem. We wrote to the minister and the Premier at the time and said we stood ready to pass urgent legislation to deal with it if it was required. We have had so many urgent bills where it was questionable how urgent they really were, but I honestly believe this whole Parliament would have been quite happy to swiftly assist the passage of that. The fact that they did not do anything for so long I think is further proof, if we need any, that local democracy, especially at the local government level, is not something that this government values.

Pleasingly, this bill does finally close that loophole by specifying that only criminal prosecutions initiated by law enforcement agencies and meeting a certain threshold can lead to a councillor being stood down. We understand that there are some house amendments as well that will ensure changes apply retrospectively to address some of the outstanding issues in the Hepburn case and to make sure that there is no window for further cases to be brought. I have heard murmurings that there are other cases potentially underway at other councils across the state, so I think this measure really could not come soon enough.

We have many questions for the minister during the committee stage, so I will take up some of the other concerns we have around the bill during that. We have before us in the second-last week of this Parliament an opportunity to genuinely address integrity issues that deeply impact the strength of democracy in local government. I would urge everyone in this place to work together to address them because in the end it is the people of Victoria who benefit. They get systems of government they can trust, they are better protected from corruption and ultimately they have systems of government that better represent them and serve their needs. I am pretty sure that is something we can all agree is a very good thing. I wish to circulate all of my amendments.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Special Minister of State) (16:16): I would like to thank all members for working very constructively with the government on the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Bill 2026. A shout-out to all the former councillors in the chamber. I am not one of you, but I know that you are very passionate about these issues, so we will have a good committee stage, I am sure.

This bill is about stronger integrity, better accountability, improved governance, fairer work in local government and ultimately stronger local communities. Councils shape the everyday lives of Victorians through the services that they deliver. That is why Victorians rightly expect their councils to operate with honesty, transparency and strong governance. This bill delivers practical reforms to support that expectation. The bill responds to recommendations arising from the IBAC Operation Sandon special report; other government initiatives, including the Whittlesea commission of inquiry; and the government’s commitment to create a local government fair jobs code and regulator. These are practical reforms aimed at making local government stronger and more accountable. There has been discussion during this debate about the scope and impact of the bill, but these reforms are not abstract; they go directly to the integrity of council decision-making, the quality of council governance, the confidence communities can have in their local representatives and the strength of the workforce delivering essential local services.

On integrity and governance, the bill introduces a new offence to prevent councillors and delegated committee members with a conflict of interest from attempting to influence others outside formal council processes. That is an important reform. Public decisions need to be made fairly and transparently, and conflicts of interest must be treated seriously. The bill also requires council CEOs to notify the chief municipal inspector if they become aware that a councillor has failed to declare a conflict of interest. That creates a clearer pathway for oversight and strengthens accountability. The bill improves transparency in councillor conduct matters by requiring the principal councillor conduct registrar to publish annual data on internal arbitration processes and councillor conduct panels. It also improves the operation of the councillor conduct framework more broadly, supporting better behaviour, more stable governance and stronger public trust.

The bill contains important reforms in relation to CEO governance and employment. It requires councils to establish a CEO employment matters committee to advise on CEO employment and remuneration matters. This provides a more structured and consistent approach to oversight and strengthens governance around one of the most important relationships in local government administration. The bill also enables regulations to prescribe a standard form contract for council CEOs, promoting consistency, transparency and accountability across the sector. In relation to mayoral and councillor status, the bill enables the council to declare vacant the office of the mayor or deputy mayor where that person is elected for a one-year term. This gives councils greater clarity and flexibility in managing leadership positions where confidence has broken down. The bill also clarifies the effect of a councillor being stood down under the act, including clearer rules around how standdowns operate. These are important measures because Victorians expect integrity and proper practice from those who hold public office.

The bill draws a clearer line between civic office and partisan campaigning. It requires a councillor to take candidate leave of absence when contesting a state election and prevents them from performing the role of councillor during that time. It also requires notification to the council CEO where a councillor is selected as a candidate or intends to be a candidate in a state election. These reforms remove ambiguity and reinforce compliance.

On meeting procedures and dispute resolution, the bill requires a council meeting to be chaired by another councillor when the question before the meeting relates to the conduct of the chairperson. That is a straightforward but important reform to support impartiality and credibility in the handling of conduct matters. The bill also enables model governance rules to be issued as mandatory governance rules through regulation, strengthening consistency in meeting procedures across councils. In addition, the bill enables the Minister for Local Government to request that a council first attempt to resolve an internal dispute or issue through the council’s internal resolution procedure before ministerial intervention is considered. Encouraging councils to resolve disputes internally before escalation is a practical and sensible reform.

The bill also delivers on the government’s commitment to fairer work in local government through the local government fair jobs code reforms. It enables the local government fair jobs code to be prescribed in regulations and establishes a framework for a fair jobs code regulator. The regulator will have functions and powers to monitor and enforce compliance, investigate and make findings, provide guidance and education, and prepare and publish compliance reports. The bill also requires each council CEO to submit to the regulator a report on compliance with the code. These reforms recognise that workforce security affects service quality, capability and continuity. By creating a framework to minimise insecure work and improve compliance, the bill strengthens local government through more stable employment settings and better support for essential council services.

The bill also amends the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to enable Melbourne City Council to levy differential rates of up to four times the lowest rate, while retaining net annual value at the valuation base. This is intended to encourage vacant and derelict sites to be brought back into use and to support a more productive central city.

The government amendments agreed to in the Assembly further strengthen the bill. Those amendments ensure that councillors who were stood down under the current law do not lose office simply because they missed more than four consecutive council meetings while they were legally stood down. They also provide that councillors are not taken to have been stood down under section 229 where the standdown arose from a private prosecution. These amendments respond to a clear and practical issue. Several councillors at Hepburn Shire Council were recently stood down following private prosecutions brought before these reforms commence, and the amendments provide for retrospective application. Without that change, councillors facing private prosecution before commencement could still be unfairly affected by the current standdown provision. In that respect the government amendments close a loophole and strengthen the operation of the law.

The house amendments being moved in this place support the removal of group voting tickets, strengthening voter choice and making the electoral system more transparent. They require published guidelines for arbitration decisions, helping promote greater consistency, clarity and confidence in councillor conduct processes. They also extend the time for councillors to make an application for an arbitration process. This will ensure that poor conduct by councillors, where they breach the councillor code of conduct, is held to account.

Some points raised in debate should also be addressed. Any suggestion that these reforms are unnecessary or excessive should be rejected. These reforms are directed at known weaknesses in the current framework. They are about cleaner decision-making, clearer accountability, fairer processes and stronger local institutions. Likewise, any argument that these reforms somehow undermine local government misses the point. Stronger governance, clearer conduct rules, better oversight and more secure work do not weaken councils; they support councils to serve their communities more effectively and with greater public confidence. Strong local governments matter because strong communities matter. Victorians deserve councils that are well governed, transparent, accountable and focused on the public interest. This bill supports those objectives. It strengthens the integrity of local government, supports better governance, advances fairer work in the sector and helps ensure local institutions are better equipped to serve the community.

The government has worked across the chamber and will be supporting amendments from the Greens and the opposition. The Greens’ amendments to remove automatic enrolment for corporations in the City of Melbourne will be supported as a first step in the work the government is undertaking to refresh the City of Melbourne Act. The government will also support the opposition’s amendment to avoid a by-election for the deputy lord mayor role, avoiding a costly election process for Melbourne ratepayers.

I ask that my amendments be now circulated. I have not got much more to say other than to thank members for their contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the house and look forward to the committee of the whole.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

 The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea) (16:26): The President has considered the amendments on sheets SMA83C, SMA85C and SMA93C circulated by Dr Mansfield, and in his view they are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required. In addition, the amendments on sheet BM09C circulated on behalf of Mrs McArthur and amendments 1 and 6 on sheet IS44C circulated by Minister Stitt are also not in scope. However, they are sufficiently covered by the wording of Dr Mansfield’s instruction motion and can be considered if the motion is agreed to.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (16:27): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider amendments and new clauses to amend the City of Melbourne Act 2001 in relation to elections.

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Clause 1 (16:28)

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, prior to the introduction of this bill what parties were consulted or briefed?

Ingrid STITT: Mrs McArthur, there is a bit of a reshuffle in the middle of the bill making its way to us, but as I am advised, the processes in the Parliament for briefings were in accordance with the normal procedures that we undertake.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, can you confirm if the department, Minister Hamer, Minister Staikos or their respective offices consulted with the Australian Services Union (ASU) prior to the $5.4 million being allocated in the state budget?

Ingrid STITT: This was a 2022 election commitment, so there would have been ongoing engagement with the Australian Services Union regarding the development of the bill as it relates to the code. In terms of budget processes you would be familiar with the fact that our budget processes are cabinet in confidence until the Treasurer is on his or her feet delivering the budget speech on budget day.

Bev McARTHUR: It is important to know the involvement of that union. But can you tell us how many meetings have been held with the Australian Services Union regarding the fair jobs code?

Ingrid STITT: I am not in a position to tell you exactly how many meetings have been held with the union in respect to these matters, but I do note that all ministers are required to publish their diary meetings in accordance with the ministerial code of conduct.

Bev McARTHUR: Why was not a single councillor or council peak body, including the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), Rural Councils Victoria and Regional Cities Victoria, consulted on the inclusion of that budget commitment?

Ingrid STITT: That is not in scope for the amendments that are before the house today. I can only direct you to the answer I gave in respect to budget matters previously.

Bev McARTHUR: It is very relevant to this bill to know exactly whether the key stakeholders – that is, councillors, peak bodies – were consulted, if at all, prior to the development especially of the regulator part of this bill that came before us in the budget, which was the first time most people knew about it. They are the key stakeholders. It is important to know whether they were consulted. From our information, they were not consulted, so we are asking why they were not consulted. Why were no peak bodies and why were no councils consulted on this fair jobs code bill?

Ingrid STITT: I think it is important to note that the actual code has not been developed yet. It will be prescribed in regulations, and that is the point at which there will be key stakeholders consulted in the development of the code, including councils, the peak body and the Australian Services Union.

Bev McARTHUR: That is the very point that the key stakeholders in this whole game, the local councils, are concerned about – that this legislation could pass without knowledge by anybody of what the details are. Just ensuring that regulations are how they are going to be informed about how this is going to work is not appropriate, and that is why we need to know why you did not consult anybody prior to it.

Ingrid STITT: I am going to correct you in relation to a number of assertions that you have just made there. There has been consultation with the Municipal Association of Victoria on the fair jobs code regulatory framework, and there has also been a pilot done prior to this bill coming to the Parliament. There is an important distinction between consultation on the code being prescribed in legislation and what the code actually looks like.

Bev McARTHUR: Was it the case that that pilot group had to sign confidentiality agreements in relation to the work that was done? I think it was two years ago.

Ingrid STITT: We are just taking that on notice, Mrs McArthur. We will see if we can get you an answer.

Just going back to the $5.4 million in the state budget, the purpose of that funding is to develop and implement the policy and regulations for the code and establish the new regulatory framework within DGS to monitor and enforce CEO compliance with the code. Subject to the bill passing the Parliament, DGS, the Department of Government Services that is, will be seeking the forward years funding to operate the regulator for 2027–28 and beyond.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, can you name one council or one peak body that is supportive of the fair jobs code?

Ingrid STITT: As I indicated earlier, there has been consultation with the Municipal Association of Victoria and a pilot. I guess I am not surprised by you asking that question, but I think it is probably important to point out that this is an election commitment that was made to create the fair jobs code and legislate for that, and that is a policy decision that I know not everyone in the chamber will agree with. But given that the government has committed to do it as an election commitment, it probably serves us best to just agree to disagree on the merits of that policy. The government strongly supports the promotion of secure employment in local government. We think that is an important principle to deliver on, and we have been speaking openly to a number of councils about the code being prescribed for a very long time.

Bev McARTHUR: There are 79 councils in Victoria. I cannot find one that supports this fair jobs code. I have consulted with every council, every councillor and every CEO in Victoria. I have not got one endorsement for this. Yes, it is your election promise, but I thought maybe you must have more relevant information than I have got about the level of support for this, but clearly not. It is the case that the first time the sector knew about this coming forward was the $5.4 million in the budget. Do you accept that that is the case, Minister?

Ingrid STITT: No, I do not accept that.

Bev McARTHUR: Has the government completed a regulatory impact statement (RIS) for these reforms?

Ingrid STITT: There will be a regulation process. The code will be developed and delivered via regulations, and prescribing the code in regulations, as I said earlier, is to ensure that appropriate stakeholder, sector and community consultation can take place. This is, if you like, the trigger for being able to do that. A RIS is not actually a requirement in this circumstance.

Bev McARTHUR: It probably is important, in any case. But what is the evidence base used to assess whether the reforms are targeted, necessary or proportionate?

Ingrid STITT: Which aspects of the bill’s reforms are you referring to?

Bev McARTHUR: The jobs code, Minister.

Ingrid STITT: Through the Chair, I thank you for your question, and as I indicated earlier, this is an election commitment. The government has taken a policy decision that requiring secure forms of employment across local government is incredibly important. I would point you to some of the comments I made in my second-reading summing-up contribution, which is really that local services that are delivered by stable, secure employees who are happy to work in local government with high levels of retention because of the secure nature of the employment is a model that we are proud to support.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, if you cannot provide the assessment as to how the reforms are targeted, necessary or proportionate, we cannot assume they are, can we?

Ingrid STITT: That would ignore the fact that local government workers are subjected to insecure and unstable employment arrangements. We have seen over many years many examples of services being contracted out or employment arrangements being changed. That reduces the security of employment and the direct employment nature of the employment relationship. The vast majority of Australian Services Union members report to their union that they are seeing an increase in insecure forms of employment at their council, particularly over the last five years, so I just do not think that your assertion stacks up.

Bev McARTHUR: It is actually widely thought that the employment in local government is one of the most secure areas of all in many areas. Councils, given their financial constraints, brought about largely by government, require that they find the most efficient way to do work, and especially in small rural municipalities there is no way they can employ on their books every single employee that has to do work for the council. A grader driver, for instance, might only have one month’s work in a year. Do you employ them for the entire 12 months? It would be very cost ineffective and a major burden on a council and their ratepayers, don’t you agree?

Ingrid STITT: You are giving me a fairly extreme example there, Mrs McArthur, and one that I cannot verify. But what I would say to you is that, as I have said already, it is a policy decision of the government to support this and give an election commitment around it, and it is not inconsistent with our approach in other areas. It sits alongside other government initiatives that promote local secure jobs, including the Local Jobs First initiative, the Victorian government fair jobs code and the community sector fair jobs code, so this is not out of step with the industrial approach that the government has taken across a range of different sectors.

Bev McARTHUR: Can you tell us if the department has regular meetings with the ASU about local government matters?

Ingrid STITT: I will have to check the extent to which the department meets with the union, but I know that the union would be regularly consulted through various government channels, including departments, on the work of the government. Obviously in relation to any meetings with ministers, those are reported through the diary disclosure process, but it is not unusual for a range of unions and indeed other employer associations as well to meet regularly with government departments on matters relevant to their work. We also have a range of advisory committees across government, made up of both unions and employer reps. It is a bit of a broadly cast question, but nobody has got anything to hide by talking to a range of stakeholders. It is important that we do to develop good policy.

Bev McARTHUR: A former minister of local government, and there have been several, mentioned a draft version of the fair jobs code at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC). What happened to this version of the code?

Ingrid STITT: We are dealing with the legislation and amendments before us today, and we have already indicated the process by which the code will be developed. If you want to pursue questions at PAEC, you will get your turn at that time next year.

Bev McARTHUR: What might happen next year is a most interesting scenario. Is there underemployment within the local government sector?

Ingrid STITT: It is outside the scope of this bill.

Bev McARTHUR: That is a good answer for avoiding the question. You said that the government consulted with the MAV. Did they support the fair jobs code?

Ingrid STITT: They were consulted about the development. This is a bit circular really because the code itself is yet to be developed, and they will be consulted closely when that work commences, so it is a little bit chicken and egg, this conversation that we are having. I will leave my comments there.

Bev McARTHUR: That is another good method of obfuscation.

Ingrid STITT: I am going to take up that interjection. It is your birthday, so we are going to keep this nice. I am advised that the Municipal Association of Victoria have engaged very positively with the government over this work, and that has certainly been my experience of them in various portfolios.

Bev McARTHUR: Among the 54 councils responding to a MAV survey, permanent, ongoing employees represent an average of 75 per cent of the workforce; 92 per cent also reported that their proportion of employees with more than 10 years service exceeded the comparable national benchmark. How is this insecure work?

Ingrid STITT: Mrs McArthur, you are asking me to comment on a survey that I have not seen. Noting that I am not the responsible minister – I am representing the responsible minister – I could talk to you about some of the surveys that the union have conducted about insecure employment as well. But the reality is that we could go all day on things like this. I have been clear that this is a policy decision that the government has taken and an election commitment given that is now being delivered on through this bill.

Bev McARTHUR: It is important to get your interpretation of how this has come about. But the MAV have written to me and spoken to me, and they say they oppose it. Are you sure you are not misrepresenting them?

Ingrid STITT: What I said was that they engaged in a positive way with the government. I did not try to indicate one way or another their position.

Bev McARTHUR: The MAV and the local government sector are ready to work constructively with the Victorian government to support secure work. This is what they said:

We respectfully urge Members of Parliament to omit Part 3 – Fair Jobs Code, comprising clauses 38–44 of the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Bill 2026, from the Bill. We also seek that any further Bill to legislate the Fair Jobs Code Regulator is not introduced to Parliament until the proposed Code, evidence base and impact assessment have been released and consulted upon.

Why would you ignore them?

Ingrid STITT: I do not accept that there has been any ignoring of any stakeholder in the development of this bill, and we have already talked a little bit about the way in which the code will be developed. There will be ongoing consultation with stakeholders on that work. I know you have an amendment, which we will be dealing with in due course. The government will not be supporting that amendment.

Bev McARTHUR: It was important to get on the record exactly what the MAV, representing 79 councils in Victoria, think of this proposal. But what additional funding will be provided to councils to implement the new governance, reporting and compliance requirements?

Ingrid STITT: I have certainly gone already to the issues around funding within the Department of Government Services and the regulator. Is that what you are asking me about?

Bev McArthur interjected.

Ingrid STITT: Not the regulator; it is compliance at councils.

We do not believe it will be a significant regulatory burden on any council at all.

Bev McARTHUR: So no extra funding will be provided? I am taking that as a no. But also, would councils receive funding assistance for the independent advice and CEO employment matters committees – clause 28? Will the state subsidise mediation costs mentioned – clause 36? And will implementation support templates or funding be provided for fair jobs code obligations – clause 41?

Ingrid STITT: As I said, we do not believe there will be a significant impact on councils when it comes to their obligations to comply with the code.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, if you have got to comply with a whole lot more regulations and requirements, there will certainly be a cost, and that is part of the cost shifting that has gone on for a long time under your government. Minister, how does the government intend to balance increased regulation with the governance principles in section 9 of the act, including achieving the best outcomes for the municipal community and ensuring the ongoing financial viability of the council?

Ingrid STITT: We certainly do not accept that there is any danger to viability of councils as a result of these reforms. At this stage the code is yet to be developed, and that is an important piece of work to be undertaken. Many councils do have strong workforce policies and procedures, and they have human resource capacity. It is unlikely to result in a significant impact from compliance with the code. The consultation processes with local government will also seek to highlight any impacts on operationalisation of the code with councils, and that is certainly work that will be undertaken during the development of the code.

Bev McARTHUR: I am just going to quote what the Murrindindi shire says:

The Bill proposes a further regulator with powers to investigate, assess, monitor and publicly report on councils and CEOs. No compelling case has been made that existing laws and regulators are inadequate, or that local government requires a separate and additional compliance regime.

For small rural councils such as Murrindindi, this is a real concern, as every new reporting requirement, compliance process, assessment, investigation or governance obligation consumes staff time and ratepayer funds. These resources would otherwise be directed towards roads, bridges, emergency management, community facilities, libraries, maternal and child health services and other frontline services.

Why are you ignoring shires like this, Minister?

Ingrid STITT: I do not accept the proposal that you are putting there, Mrs McArthur, that we are ignoring anybody. I have just outlined a number of times what the process will be to consult with councils in the development of the code. You are being a bit mischievous in suggesting that we are ignoring councils when there is a whole process to be undertaken. I also would point out that it is the regulator who will be required to monitor and assess compliance with the code; report to the minister; ensure reports in relation to compliance with the code are published; provide guidance and education, importantly, to the CEO and council on any matters relating to the operation of the code; and refer suspected breaches of the act to the chief municipal inspector or council. But as I have said a number of times, there will be further work done with stakeholders to develop the code that will sit in the regulations.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, on what modelling are you basing your claim that there will be no cost to councils?

Ingrid STITT: I already indicated in my previous answer that the consultation process with local government will also seek to highlight any impacts on issues surrounding operationalisation of the code.

Bev McARTHUR: In this new process that is going to evolve to bring all this to pass, if you find that there are added costs, which I cannot imagine there will not be if you have got more administration work to be done, will the government reimburse councils for this extra cost?

Ingrid STITT: You are asking me for an opinion about work that is yet to be undertaken.

Bev McARTHUR: No, it is not really an opinion; I am just asking for a fact. Who appoints the regulator?

Ingrid STITT: The bill provides that the Secretary of the Department of Government Services will appoint a person employed under the Public Administration Act 2004 to be the fair jobs code regulator.

Bev McARTHUR: Yes, just as I thought, a department employee who would be appointed by the minister –

Ingrid STITT: The secretary of the department.

Bev McARTHUR: well, the secretary is appointed by the minister, I presume – will appoint the regulator, so therefore it is via the government. How can you attest that such a regulator would be independent?

Ingrid STITT: There are a couple of things in response to that, Mrs McArthur. The Premier appoints the heads of departments, so it is incorrect to say that the minister does. Also, are you questioning the impartiality and professionalism of our senior public servants?

Bev McARTHUR: No. What we are trying to ascertain is how independent the regulator will be when they are appointed by the department secretary.

Ingrid STITT: Their functions will be set out in legislation, and consistent with other regulators across government, they will take those functions and responsibilities very seriously.

Bev McARTHUR: Will small rural councils be subject to the same compliance requirements as metropolitan councils, despite significant differences in workforce size and resources?

Ingrid STITT: I would not want to pre-empt the consultation that will be undertaken in the development of the code.

Bev McARTHUR: That will not be comforting to small rural councils. Minister, has the government assessed whether the additional CEO employment requirements will make it more difficult for rural councils to attract and retain CEOs?

Ingrid STITT: I would say that council CEOs are required to manage complex service delivery organisations, Mrs McArthur. Again, I would not want to pass judgement on their capacity to do that based on their size.

Bev McARTHUR: I am aware that it is perhaps difficult for you to comment on what might be the case outside the metropolitan area, but for small rural councils these things are very much an important matter. Minister, can you tell us what the regulator’s salary will be?

Ingrid STITT: It will be in accordance with the way in which appointments in the public sector are made. There are different levels within that structure, and there are guidelines that all departments follow as to where positions sit within that structure.

Bev McARTHUR: Regarding the prescribed CEO contract and procedural requirements, clauses 27 and 35, and the fair jobs code, clauses 41 and 44, what is the expected timeline for their finalisation?

Ingrid STITT: Do you mean the development of the code timelines?

Bev McARTHUR: Yes, thank you, Minister.

Ingrid STITT: The local government fair jobs code reforms have a commencement date of 1 July 2027 unless proclaimed earlier, but it is anticipated that the regulations will be made as soon as practicable after these provisions of the bill have commenced, noting that, as I have indicated, there will be important consultation with key stakeholders that will take place to inform the development of those regulations.

Bev McARTHUR: Who will be the key stakeholders that you will be consulting with on that matter that you have just referred to?

Ingrid STITT: I think I have already answered that, Mrs McArthur, in response to a previous question that you asked. Key stakeholders to be consulted in the development of the code would include councils and the Australian Services Union and I am assuming the Municipal Association of Victoria as well. I can confirm that; I am getting nodded at from the box.

Bev McARTHUR: When you say ‘councils’, will that be all 79 councils in Victoria?

Ingrid STITT: All councils will have the opportunity to participate in that consultation.

Bev McARTHUR: Has the government put out an expression of interest form to recruit for the technical working group developing the CEO contract requirements, and if so, what are the selection criteria?

Ingrid STITT: Not yet. That has not happened.

Bev McARTHUR: I presume it will be after all this passes. Is that what you are suggesting?

Ingrid STITT: Yes.

Bev McARTHUR: So which councils applied to participate in the mandatory governance rules technical working group but were not accepted?

Ingrid STITT: We will have to take that on notice and see if we can get you that information.

Bev McARTHUR: Were members of the former local government fair jobs code advisory committee subject to confidentiality or non-disclosure requirements?

Ingrid STITT: You have already asked me that. I said I would have to take it on notice.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I do have a number of questions. I will ask all of them on clause 1 if that suits. I may have a couple as we move through some of the amendments. I understand in your closing remarks you mentioned that the government is planning to embark on a review of the City of Melbourne Act 2001. They recognise that there is more work that needs to be done. Can you provide some detail of this? Can you commit to undertaking a review? When will this work commence, and will any amendments that may be required as a result of this review be in place prior to the next local government elections?

Ingrid STITT: As you would know, the act is 25 years old. It is in need of review, and we will implement our findings before council elections. We want to be fulsome to ensure that the act works well and serves the needs of the people of the City of Melbourne, so there will need to be some work done on that.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Along a similar line, I understand the government is not likely to support our amendments regarding donations reform in local government. Will you at least commit to reviewing donations in local government? Similarly, if you are going to do that, when will that work commence, and when will you put in place any changes to those donations reforms?

Ingrid STITT: The advice I have is that we are working towards a review currently.

Sarah MANSFIELD: ‘Working towards a review’ does not fill me with a lot of confidence that there is going to be a review, but we can maybe discuss that more when we get to amendments. I mentioned this in the second-reading debate: currently the only avenue for a councillor to appeal the decision of an arbiter in a code of conduct matter or a decision by the principal councillor conduct registrar is to take it to the Supreme Court. As I mentioned, this is costly and prohibitive, and for many councillors the consequences of the decisions can be really significant. As I flagged, the decisions of arbiters can be inconsistent as well, given the lack of guidelines and the large amount of discretion they are empowered by the legislation to administer in their decisions. We appreciate that VCAT is not the ideal place to challenge a decision – that used to be an option that was available; it was removed in 2024 – but in the absence of any alternative we are concerned that there is not some sort of step in between the arbiter making a decision to, say, suspend a councillor for a significant period of time and taking that to the Supreme Court. There is no way to appeal a decision like that without taking it to the Supreme Court. Will the government commit to developing a fair and accessible appeals pathway for councillors regarding the decisions of an arbiter or the PCCR?

Ingrid STITT: Some of the house amendments go to strengthening the arbitration process, but we would not be closed to consideration of how those reforms are working. If there needed to be further strengthening, we would not be opposed to looking at those matters.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Again, I think not being opposed to something and committing to actually doing something are probably two different things. We would like to see a commitment to developing an appeals pathway. Again, maybe we can ask about that a little bit more as amendments are moved.

Regarding the model governance rules and the requirement for those to be adopted, we certainly understand that the development and standardisation of governance rules across councils was a recommendation of Operation Sandon. But why has the government gone about the process in this way, whereby the adoption of the model governance rules has been mandated before there has been consultation on what is actually going to be in them? Can you explain what the process is going to be to determine the detail of these model governance rules?

Ingrid STITT: Dr Mansfield, as you correctly point out, this is in response to Operation Sandon, where IBAC found that a lack of harmonisation across council meeting procedures in Victoria was leading to poor public understanding of correct decision-making processes and also making it more difficult to identify when a process is not being properly followed or is improper. To address this finding, IBAC recommended that the act be amended to require councils to adopt those model governance rules to operate as minimum standards for council meeting procedures. The bill will enable the making of mandatory model governance rules to establish minimum standards that promote consistency and good governance in relation to the conduct of council meetings and meetings of delegated committees while allowing local variation where appropriate.

Councils will be required to incorporate the prescribed model governance rules into their own locally adopted governance rules. But as I said, councils will retain the discretion to adopt supplementary meeting procedures, provided they are not inconsistent with or do not contradict the model governance rules. This approach will provide councils with the flexibility to tailor aspects of the meeting procedures where permitted to reflect local circumstances, and where appropriate, flexibility will be built into the model governance rules to facilitate this.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Thank you for that explanation. I think some of the key things, though, would be who is going to be consulted on this and what is the timeline for developing them, just in terms of the process of developing these guidelines?

Ingrid STITT: If I am understanding you correctly, councils would not be required to undertake additional community consultation under the act where they are adopting or incorporating a model governance rule as drafted within the discretions contained in the rule. However, where modifications or variations to aspects of the model governance rules are permitted, the regulation will be able to clarify when consultation is required.

Sarah MANSFIELD: My question is actually just about the development of the model governance rules. Over what time period are they going to be created and who is going to be involved in creating them? Who is going to actually have input into the actual model governance rules that everyone will have to adopt? What is that process going to look like?

Ingrid STITT: The technical working group has been developing them with governance officers from councils, and they will be put out for consultation, subject to the passage of the bill.

Sarah MANSFIELD: With respect to clause 2, I just want to clarify on the record that the transitional provision in clause 25 means that new sections 38A, 38B and 38C will not come into effect until 1 January 2027. These are the clauses that relate to councillors who may already be running or intend to run as candidates in the upcoming state election. I am just checking for absolute clarity that those parts of this bill that would require them to otherwise stand down – mayors or deputy mayors – do not come into effect until 1 January 2027, so they should not impact this upcoming election.

Ingrid STITT: Yes, I can confirm that is correct. Any requirements for mayors or deputy mayors to notify the CEO of their intention to run and any councillors who nominate being required to take candidate leave of absence will not apply to the November 2026 state election, only to any future elections held from 1 January 2027. This means that current mayors, deputy mayors and councillors who have already been preselected or who have publicly announced their intention to stand as a candidate for the Victorian election in a few short weeks will not be affected by the new requirements.

Sarah MANSFIELD: With respect to part 2, division 1, clause 8 outlines that an absolute majority of councillors is required to bring on a motion of no confidence in a mayor. Can I confirm that that is a majority of the total number of councillors, not just the number of councillors who happen to turn up on any particular day?

Ingrid STITT: An absolute majority in this context means a number of councillors which is greater than half the total number of councillors elected – that is, more than 50 per cent of the total number of councillors – consistent with the definition of ‘absolute majority’ in section 23(5) of the Local Government Act 2020. For example, if the total number of councillors is 13, then the absolute majority would be seven. If the total number of councillors is nine, an absolute majority would be five.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just to further clarify, that provision in the bill is just about bringing forth a motion of no confidence. For the motion to pass – the vote on the motion – my understanding is that would require 75 per cent of councillors to pass a motion of no confidence. Can I firstly confirm that that is correct, that it has to be 75 per cent of councillors to pass a motion of no confidence? And again, can I check whether that is 75 per cent of elected councillors as opposed to just 75 per cent of the ones who are in the room at that time?

Ingrid STITT: I can confirm that a no-confidence motion would require at least 75 per cent of all councillors in office – not 75 per cent of councillors at the meeting – to support a motion for it to pass.

Sarah MANSFIELD: With respect to clause 12, it says that there is a penalty under section 37B of the act that states that councillors may not attend council premises while stood down. Can you clarify or confirm that this only applies when a councillor is attending the premises for the purpose of carrying out their duties as a councillor – for example, a councillor using the local council-operated gyms while they are stood down or going to the library in a personal capacity or even attending a protest out the front of the council building as a private citizen? Would they still be able to do those things, given this new provision that says they cannot attend council premises when stood down?

Ingrid STITT: They can attend for personal purposes but not in their official capacity, and that is consistent with other provisions in the Local Government Act when a councillor is stood down.

Sarah MANSFIELD: In clause 14, new section 39(5A) outlines that during a candidate leave of absence mayors and deputies would not be eligible to receive the additional allowance that they receive for those positions. Has any kind of assessment been done to determine whether certain demographics, for example, might be disproportionately impacted by this change and what impact that might have, depending on how that allowance income affects their personal circumstances?

Ingrid STITT: A councillor allowance is paid as recompense to a councillor for performing their functions and duties as a councillor, obviously. A councillor who has nominated as a candidate for the Victorian Parliament is automatically placed on a candidate leave of absence by operation of the law. There is no requirement for any person or office holder to initiate the standing down or to give the council a notice that they are stood down. During the period in which they are stood down, the councillor is prohibited from performing their duties or exercising the powers of a councillor, and accordingly they are not entitled to the councillor allowance during that period. These arrangements are distinct from other forms of leave that a councillor may take as they provide a mandatory period of leave from office, and once the candidate leave of absence provisions apply, councillors are unable to perform any function or duty as a councillor and accordingly are just not entitled to receive any allowance for that period. In these circumstances, whether the reform may or may not have a disproportionate impact on a particular demographic is not really a relevant consideration under the legislation.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Clause 16 basically states that the chair should not be conducting a meeting if there is ‘a question before the meeting’ concerning their conduct. Can you explain what ‘a question before the meeting’ actually means? Does that mean a motion? What is the meaning of that term?

Ingrid STITT: The term ‘a question before the meeting’ would be a question or matter listed on the agenda for the meeting, or a question asked or proposed during a meeting, that is permitted under the applicable procedural rules for that meeting.

Sarah MANSFIELD: How would that mechanism be triggered? What would trigger that mechanism where the mayor would not be able to chair the meeting?

Ingrid STITT: The chair of the meeting at the time the question is proposed or at the time the agenda item is reached would, if the question entails an allegation of misconduct, serious misconduct, review of a decision of a councillor conduct panel against them or any other conduct by them, be expected to declare a conflict of interest and stand down as chair, with a new temporary chair to be appointed for the purposes of consideration of the relevant question or agenda item.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Does this mean that the mayor cannot chair a meeting if there is potential for a misconduct complaint to be levied?

Ingrid STITT: No. Under the relevant provisions the mayor would only be required to step aside as chair if a relevant question is to be considered by the meeting and only step aside for the purpose of the determination of that question.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Would this change also apply to matters where mayors or deputies are subject to criminal or civil charges?

Ingrid STITT: No, the proposed amendment does not say anything about criminal charges. It is not known what is intended by the reference to civil charges. Sorry, hang on.

Apologies. No.

Sarah MANSFIELD: With respect to clause 24 and the standing down of councillors, can you provide clarification on who is responsible for initiating the process of standing down the councillor and providing formal notification? At the moment, the way it is written, a councillor is stood down, but it does not say who does the actual standing down. The legislation does, but what are the mechanics of that? Who is the actual person who is involved in that process? Is it the CEO, for example? Is it the inspectorate? Who does the standing down?

Ingrid STITT: I have got a bit of advice on this one, Dr Mansfield. Section 229 of the Local Government Act provides for a councillor to be automatically stood down when they are charged with certain serious offences that would result in their disqualification from office if convicted. A councillor who is stood down is prevented from performing their role as a councillor while stood down until there is an outcome in the criminal proceedings. There is no requirement for any person or office holder to initiate the standing down or to give the council notice that they are stood down. The standing down under section 229(1) occurs automatically by operation of the law. Under section 229, a councillor charged with a relevant offence is required to notify the CEO of the charges and is stood down until the criminal matter is resolved.

David ETTERSHANK: The government says that the content of the fair jobs code has not yet been determined, but this bill already establishes a mandatory code and a new regulator. Can the minister explain what substantive policy choices remain genuinely open to consultation, and can consultation result in a recommendation that particular regulatory requirements or functions of the regulator should not proceed?

Ingrid STITT: The bill at proposed section 54B states that the regulations may prescribe a fair jobs code for the purposes of providing a robust framework for secure work practices. That obviously means that the details of the code will be prescribed in regulations. Subject to the bill passing today, the Department of Government Services will engage in robust consultation with the sector to inform what is to be prescribed in the regulations. As per some of my previous answers to other members, the functions of the regulator are set out in the bill.

David ETTERSHANK: Councils are independently elected governments responsible to their own communities for service delivery and expenditure. What evidence has government identified that justifies removing or constraining decisions that are presently lawfully made by councils and their CEOs about how local services are delivered?

Ingrid STITT: The objective of the code is to provide a robust framework for secure employment across all councils and, as I have indicated in the committee stage, this was a 2022 election commitment. The bill provides for exemptions and recognises that in specific circumstances there may be reasonable exemptions to the code. The consultation process with the local government sector will inform any exemptions developed.

David ETTERSHANK: Can the particular failure be identified in the existing industrial relations, procurement and governance framework that requires a new statutory regulator rather than targeted use of existing mechanisms?

Ingrid STITT: I note that the code has not been developed yet, but when it is, it will aim to create secure employment across all councils where appropriate. Really the nub of this is that the mechanism and the statutory regulator model are to address the issues around the use of labour hire and other insecure forms of employment. Through the consultation the department will seek to strengthen the understanding of what is working well and where the gaps are, and this will inform development of the code.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, can you advise what independently verified sectorwide evidence the government has about the actual prevalence and causes of insecure work across Victoria’s 79 councils, perhaps broken down between casual employment, labour hire, specialist contractors and outsourced service delivery?

Ingrid STITT: I think my answer might be a little broader than what you are specifically seeking, but the establishment of the local government fair jobs code, as I have indicated earlier, was a 2022 election commitment, and it is outlined also in the second-reading speech that the bill establishes the framework to deliver the government’s commitment to introducing a fair jobs code for local government. It provides for a fair, practical and enforceable code to be prescribed to ensure that the essential public services delivered by local government are underpinned by safe, secure and fair work practices. The code will set a standard for all councils to follow now and into the future, ensuring consistency in practice where appropriate. I have already answered a question in relation to exemptions and how they might be appropriate. The objective of the code is to protect workers rights today, tomorrow and for the longer term, and I think that is important for the viability of the sector into the future. I want to acknowledge that many councils do have excellent secure work practices, and we want to make sure that continues despite the council of the day or the administration or some of the other nuances. But essentially the process that will be followed to develop the code will be an important one because it will engage with all the key stakeholders.

David ETTERSHANK: Recognising that perhaps you are not in a position to answer that question to the degree of detail I was requesting, could I ask whether that evidence and the methodology will be published before the code is finalised so that Parliament and councils can determine whether the regulatory response is proportionate to the problems being identified?

Ingrid STITT: As I have advised the chamber a few times, the robust consultation with the local government sector that will inform the development of the code will be an important process, and public consultation on the draft code is anticipated to take place on the Engage Victoria platform as well as through the normal departmental processes. But it is really about making sure that that work is robust and vigorous.

David ETTERSHANK: I do apologise for any duplication. I guess it is a bit Venn diagrammy in some places. If consultation demonstrates that a proposed element of the code would materially increase costs, reduce service availability or worsen workforce shortages in some communities, what obligation will there be on government to modify or abandon that element of the code?

Ingrid STITT: Again, this is going to be something that is fleshed out during the consultation period. If consultation does elicit information around where proposed elements of the code could materially or adversely impact specific communities, then that will inform the design of the code. It is difficult to crystal ball about what that will look like, but the important thing is the commitment around having that process in the development of the regulations.

David ETTERSHANK: Why is public reporting of CEO noncompliance necessary where the noncompliance may be minor, technical, disputed or attributable to circumstances outside the CEO’s practical control?

Ingrid STITT: Certainly the department will focus on education and guidance for CEOs in relation to the code before the code is implemented. Again, the code has not yet been developed. Therefore consultation will strengthen understanding of circumstances that are outside of a CEO’s control and will inform the development of the code. The bill does not prescribe penalties for councils or CEOs for noncompliance with the code. Where the regulator identifies noncompliance by a CEO, the bill provides for reporting of findings to the minister and publication of compliance reports. It is a continuous process of improvement model, I guess you would describe it as, to make sure that there is plenty of incentive to comply with the code.

David ETTERSHANK: Who doesn’t like a bit of continuous improvement? Could I ask, Minister, given that Parliament is being asked to establish the mandatory framework before seeing the substance of the code, will the government commit to providing Parliament with the proposed final code, the consultation report and its impact analysis before the regulations are actually passed?

Ingrid STITT: The formal public consultation on the code is anticipated to take place on Engage Victoria. During many consultation processes there is a sharing of relevant stakeholder feedback where appropriate, but I think it is important to note that the bill also requires a five-year legislative review of the code.

David ETTERSHANK: I just want to pursue that one a little further. Minister, is that a no to that specific request with regard to the Parliament being advised of the proposed final code prior to it being promulgated?

Ingrid STITT: The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) also reviews all regulations, so there technically is a parliamentary process that is already established. I am not sure if you were in the chamber when I talked earlier about the timelines of developing the regulations and when they will come into effect. I am happy to repeat that if required. The fair jobs code reforms have a commencement date of 1 July next year. It is anticipated that the regulations will be made as soon as practicable after the provisions of the bill have commenced, and there will be a SARC process involved in that review of the regulations.

David ETTERSHANK: I think we must have slightly different timetables that have been provided by the department. Minister, would that mean then – just to check – that the code would actually be subject to a parliamentary disallowance motion if there was a level of dissatisfaction in the chamber?

Ingrid STITT: The advice I have is that the SARC process will determine the regs, but I just want to check with you the question you had about the timelines, because the making of the regulations can commence and the consultation to develop the code that will sit in the regulations can commence after the bill passes. But the act applies from 1 July 2027, so the process of developing the regs could be completed sooner than that.

David ETTERSHANK: The timeline I have been provided by Minister Richardson is –

Ingrid STITT: I am just a mouthpiece for him today.

David ETTERSHANK: You are always much more than that, I am sure, Minister. The advice I have received from Minister Richardson – and we are appreciative of the time he has taken to walk us through this stuff – is that the final draft code is desired to be published in August of 2027. Is that consistent with your understanding?

Ingrid STITT: We will just get some clarification on the advice you had previously been given. I will just take that on notice, and we will come back to you.

David ETTERSHANK: Thank you, Minister. I would appreciate it if you could do that. I suppose this might link to that question as well. The minister has stated that he anticipates releasing the draft code around May of 2027. Minister, I seek an assurance that both the MAV and the ASU will be involved in the preparation of that draft code for distribution.

Ingrid STITT: Yes. The MAV and the union and other council stakeholders will be consulted through the drafting process. And on the way that the code is drafted, the government will consult with key stakeholders, as I have already said a number of times, and they will be involved throughout the process of drafting.

Bev McARTHUR: Rather than go clause by clause, I will ask them now if that is preferable. What happens if the fair jobs code conflicts with a council’s existing enterprise agreement obligations?

Ingrid STITT: It is not intended that the code would disturb existing industrial arrangements. These are issues that can be fleshed out in the consultation process in the development of the regs.

Bev McARTHUR: This is of great concern to many in this area, but given new section 54O provides that any other act prevails to the extent of a conflict, what work does the code actually do when it touches matters governed by the Fair Work Act 2009 or the Gender Equality Act 2020?

Ingrid STITT: Those other acts always take precedence.

Bev McARTHUR: I will now go to the fair jobs code regulator. The ASU’s media release from 29 May 2026 titled ‘Your work pays off’ states the following:

The Code means Councils must:

•   ensure that any local government sector outsourcing is rare, fair, and doesn’t undermine jobs, pay or service quality

•   retain in-house service delivery including in-home aged care and early childhood services

•   consult with your union regarding any procurement projects ensuring that service delivery is consistent and pay and conditions are maintained, and

•   targets outsourcing, labour hire and casualisation.

Ms Watt and Minister Hamer mentioned the ASU in their speeches on this bill, so can you confirm that their media release’s claims are correct?

Ingrid STITT: It is not a matter that is relevant to the scope of the bill before us, and I do not think it is reasonable for you to ask me to comment on the media releases of our organisations.

Bev McARTHUR: These are critical issues relating to this bill. What the union has said is happening here and Ms Watt and Minister Hamer have mentioned in their speeches is critical to this bill. So are the unions right in these details that they have provided or not?

Ingrid STITT: I draw your attention to the second-reading speech in respect to the section dealing with delivering a fair jobs code for local government. You would be aware, having been in this place for some time now, of the significance of the second reading.

Bev McARTHUR: Can you please confirm what ‘rare outsourcing’ might mean? Please explain.

Ingrid STITT: I am not going to get drawn on a back and forth with you about a media release of an organisation. What I will do, though, is again point you to the second-reading speech and the bill before us today, which is about establishing a framework to deliver the government’s commitment to introduce a fair jobs code for local government. It provides for a fair, practical and enforceable code to be prescribed to ensure that the essential public services delivered by local government are underpinned by safe, secure and fair work practices.

Bev McARTHUR: To what extent will in-home aged care and early childhood services be brought in-house, and will the state increase funding for these services where relevant?

Ingrid STITT: You are asking me to predict the decisions of councils in relation to the services that they provide, and I am simply not in a position to do that. I am happy to go chapter and verse with you again on what the intent of the fair jobs code is. I know that we will not agree on the policy intent behind it, but the government is in full agreement with developing this code in the manner that I have outlined in the committee stage.

Bev McARTHUR: I fully accept that this is your policy. I am just trying to make sure we can flesh out the detail of it. To what degree will a council be required to consult with the ASU on procurement projects?

Ingrid STITT: Again, that is not a matter that is in the scope of the bill before us. We have agreed to work in consultation with the sector and key stakeholders who work in and around that sector on the development of the code. That is a very different proposition to the one you are outlining. You are giving scenarios based on hypotheticals and expecting me to answer them in the committee stage. They are not matters that are dealt with by this bill.

Bev McARTHUR: Can you confirm if outsourcing, labour hire and casualisation will be addressed in the code?

Ingrid STITT: As I have already indicated, and I again point you to the very instructive sections of the second-reading speech, Mrs McArthur, and the explanatory memorandum that accompany this bill, we absolutely back in our policy decision to develop a practical and enforceable code to be prescribed to ensure that the essential public services delivered by local government are underpinned by safe, secure and fair work practices.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, I feel we have to get on the record that the second-reading speech of the minister mentions the ASU and Ms Watt acknowledged the ASU’s lobbying on this bill in her speech. How can you say their public comments are out of scope?

Ingrid STITT: I am not sure what the point is that you are trying to get at here. We have made an election commitment. We are proud to have made that election commitment, and we are proud to have brought this bill to the Parliament. There will be a range of important stakeholders, including the ASU, that will continue to be consulted about the development of the code.

Bev McARTHUR: You have now confirmed their involvement. Thank you. How much taxpayer money will be spent operating the new regulator annually?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered earlier, Mrs McArthur – if you were paying attention. You were the one that asked it.

Bev McARTHUR: That was the total amount for the regulator, right, $5.4 million?

Ingrid STITT: Yes –

Bev McARTHUR: Is that to establish it? Is that the total amount ongoing? For how long?

Ingrid STITT: Mrs McArthur, it is your birthday – I have just remembered that – so I will go to the question again, even though I have already answered it. What I said was that there is the $5.4 million that is in the 2026–27 budget. We have already discussed that. But I also said that, subject to Parliament passing the bill, the Department of Government Services will seek funding for forward years to operate the regulator in accordance with the normal budget processes.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, if the code adds cost, is that expected to be absorbed by councils within the rate cap?

Ingrid STITT: The code will be developed, as I have said many times, in consultation with the local government sector, which will identify any additional costs likely to be borne by councils associated with implementing and complying with the code. In relation to rate capping, council rates are capped, and a council cannot simply pass on the costs to ratepayers associated with the implementation of the code. A council seeking an exemption must apply to the Essential Services Commission under the Fair Go Rates system, and the council must submit its formal application by 31 March and demonstrate how the rate increase is actually necessary.

Bev McARTHUR: Given there is no longer a requirement for the minister to take advice from the Essential Services Commission, does the government have any intention to lift the rate cap above the CPI?

Ingrid STITT: This bill does not deal with rate capping.

Bev McARTHUR: New section 54C(1) requires compliance unless a prescribed exemption applies. What exemptions are contemplated on what criteria, and will small rural councils be eligible?

Ingrid STITT: This has been asked and answered already, Mrs McArthur, and I indicated to you that the types of exemptions that might be necessary will be flushed out during that consultation process and development of the regs.

Bev McARTHUR: New section 54O provides that any other act prevails over divisions 10 and 11 to the extent of a conflict. Which acts is that expected to operate against in practice, and does it leave the code able to impose any obligation not already available under existing industrial law?

Ingrid STITT: I have answered this question, but I am happy to go and get further instructions. But the earlier question you posed and I answered was that the legislation would prevail.

A code cannot override legislation. I did already answer that earlier, Mrs McArthur.

Bev McARTHUR: How will the code support smaller councils to achieve the economies of scale necessary to deliver high-cost services such as kerbside waste collection? If such services were delivered in-house, there would be significant duplication across the sector, and the overall cost would be beyond the means of smaller councils. How will they manage that?

Ingrid STITT: Again, Mrs McArthur, you are asking me to predetermine or prejudge what the consultation process will result in, and I am just not in a position to do that. There is a process that we have gone through a number of times in the committee stage about how these regulations and the code will be developed, and that is work that will happen once the bill passes the Parliament.

Bev McARTHUR: Does the government recognise that minimising insecure work, including outsourcing, labour hire and casualisation, is impossible for small rural council services where the people or specialist skills are unavailable locally? Market testing has shown this to be so. If a council can show that automation, shared services, specialist contracting, outsourcing or a different operating model can provide the same or better service at a lower cost, will the code leave councils and CEOs free to make those changes?

Ingrid STITT: This is just another scenario you are giving me that I have already answered in previous questions. There is a way in which exemptions can be sought, which the bill outlines, but the development of the code and the development of the regulations will answer these questions.

Bev McARTHUR: New section 54L allows the regulator to delay, recall or vary a notice of decision pending a court or tribunal proceeding on the same or a related issue, with no outer time limit. How long can a CEO be left under an unresolved adverse notice, and what constitutes a related issue?

Ingrid STITT: Sorry, can you just give me the clause reference number? This is not in respect of the code – this is the model governance section?

Bev McARTHUR: It is clause 41 and new section 54L.

Ingrid STITT: If there is a matter before the Supreme Court, the regulator’s work is on hold.

Bev McARTHUR: Beyond publication of noncompliance under new sections 54M and 54N, what sanctions exist for a CEO found noncompliant?

Ingrid STITT: Not compliant with the code? There are no sanctions contained in this bill; they can report on it, essentially. To support compliance the bill provides the regulator with compliance, monitoring and investigative powers, including the power to investigate complaints about noncompliance received from council staff, individuals and the public, and the bill enables the regulator to undertake own-motion inquiries and investigations triggered by compliance activities and compliance assessments submitted by CEOs.

Bev McARTHUR: So where the regulator makes an adverse finding despite a CEO response, is any independent review or appeal available before a finding about an individual CEO is published?

Ingrid STITT: I will just give you a little bit of detail about the public reporting, and hopefully that will cover your question. The public reporting on outcomes of these compliance activities is proposed to be the primary enforcement mechanism for the code, with compliance reports published on a publicly available website maintained by the Department of Government Services. Annual compliance reports published by the regulator will serve as the public record and provide information on council compliance year on year with the code. This is expected to promote compliance with the code by creating a reputational risk to CEOs and councils associated with publication of reports of noncompliance.

Bev McARTHUR: In clause 43, regarding confidential information, what safeguards will be put in place to protect sensitive council information unrelated to an actual fair jobs code investigation?

Ingrid STITT: The bill requires any confidential information contained in a report prepared by the regulator to be redacted from the copy published online. This is consistent with the legislative framework relating to the requirements for confidential information.

Bev McARTHUR: In clause 45, under ‘Differential rates’, part 4 commences by proclamation with a default of 1 July 2027. Will the City of Melbourne be able to adopt a four-times ratio in time for the 2027–28 budget, and will part 4 be proclaimed early to allow it?

Ingrid STITT: I will just seek some instruction on that one.

The advice I have is that they will be consulted on the implementation timeframes, but it will be available by 1 July. If they want to use the new differential rates, the City of Melbourne will need to consult the community. But obviously we will consult them on the implementation timelines.

Bev McARTHUR: Division 1 of part 2 commences automatically the day after royal assent. Of the provisions left to proclamation, being division 2 of part 2, part 3 and part 4, which will be proclaimed before the November 2026 election?

Ingrid STITT: The default provisions may apply, but that will depend on the consultation and implementation readiness.

Bev McARTHUR: Going back to clause 12, ‘council premises’ is not defined in this bill or the existing act. Would a stood-down councillor be barred from accessing facilities they are entitled to use as a ratepayer?

Ingrid STITT: Asked by and answered to Dr Mansfield.

Bev McARTHUR: Who will be monitoring compliance with new section 37A?

Ingrid STITT: Because there are minimum standards and there is going to be that built-in flexibility as to how the standards apply, the chief municipal inspector can monitor compliance.

Bev McARTHUR: ‘Standing down of Councillor charged with offence’, clause 24: Don Henderson was stood down in March 2026. The government waited three months to introduce this bill and then another two months to amend section 229. Why did it take some five to six months for you to correct this mess?

Ingrid STITT: I do not agree with the assertion contained in that question, for a start. Every bill that comes before the Parliament goes through a policy development process through proper cabinet oversight.

Bev McARTHUR: Will the government model the prescribed contract on existing CEO contracts in the sector?

Ingrid STITT: Just bear with me. I will get you some proper advice.

That question will form part of the consultation process in the development of the model governance rules.

Bev McARTHUR: Can you explain what might happen to an existing CEO contract that already exceeds five years or does not address a prescribed matter? Is it automatically void, or is there a transition period?

Ingrid STITT: These questions will be ventilated and dealt with through the consultation process, so I do not want to predetermine that.

Bev McARTHUR: You can understand that they need to be put on the record here today, because these are the issues that are most concerning to the sector. Where contracts contravene the regulations due to a technical or drafting error, could they be voided?

Ingrid STITT: The advice that I have is that current contracts are not implicated, because this would apply to contracts prospectively. But again, there will be thorough consultation on how the model governance arrangements are developed.

Bev McARTHUR: What happens then to a council and a CEO if the problem is not identified until well into the contract? Again, new section 331 makes no transitional provision for this clause.

Ingrid STITT: Again, you are giving me scenarios or hypothetical situations. I have already indicated that there is no implication for current contracts. This would only apply prospectively. We have made a commitment around the consultation that will occur in the development of these important strengthening arrangements. Do not forget that these matters have been recommended through various reviews and special reports of IBAC.

Bev McARTHUR: What flexibility will remain for councils to tailor CEO employment arrangements to local labour market conditions?

Ingrid STITT: Again, these are not matters that are able to be answered specifically right now, Mrs McArthur. The bill before the house is about giving effect to recommendations arising from, amongst other things, IBAC’s Operation Sandon special report and also government initiatives, including the Whittlesea commission of inquiry. We have talked a lot about the code tonight, but there are other important reforms in the bill which are about fulfilling the government’s commitments to accept recommendations from various reports.

Sitting suspended 6:23 pm until 7:32 pm.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur’s amendments 1 and 2 test her amendments 36 to 46.

Bev McARTHUR: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, lines 3 to 14, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

2.   Clause 1, page 2, line 15, omit “(v)” and insert “(ii)”.

Ingrid STITT: Local government matters because service delivery matters, and the government supports the fair jobs code because secure work delivers better local services. Too many local government workers are still in insecure work, and that affects service quality, continuity and capability. Councils and their workforces deliver critical services to Victorians, from waste recovery to family support, planning and local laws. Councils across the state employ more than 57,000 workers to deliver these services, and many of them are in insecure work. We recognise that councils from time to time can engage contractors, labour hire companies and outsourced services for service delivery. That can be appropriate at times for one-off projects or seasonal tasks. These arrangements should be minimised where possible. High levels of insecure employment can lead to inconsistency in maintaining high standards of service delivery. Insecure jobs also lead to more turnover, less skill development and experience and less connection with the local community. The fair jobs code helps councils build a more stable, skilled and connected workforce, which is good for workers and good for communities. The government has committed to delivering the fair jobs code for local government, which is why we do not support Mrs McArthur’s amendment, which would effectively remove the local government jobs code from the bill.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. While we appreciate that there are some concerns from councils about how this will work and what the detail is, we are satisfied that there will be a consultation process. I think some of the comments I made in the second-reading speech are really probably on the key issues about this working properly. It will really depend on adequate funding for councils, and that is not something that has been addressed to date. So while we very much support the fair jobs code, in order for it to be successful, there has to be meaningful engagement with councils themselves but also proper funding, because otherwise councils will continue to cut services. There will not be those council jobs, because they just will not be providing the services themselves; they will be relying on the private sector to provide those services. We know that in many centres, especially rural ones, there are no other providers around for some of these services, so having strong frameworks around good council jobs is absolutely critical. But it has to be backed by funding, and that is one of the things we really would like to see, going forward.

Council divided on amendments:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I invite you to move amendment 1 on your sheet IS44C, which tests your amendment 6.

Ingrid STITT: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 16 insert –

“(aa) to amend the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to remove group voting tickets from the election of Councillors; and”.

The government’s house amendment will provide for removal of group voting provisions in the City of Melbourne Act. This amendment will enhance democratic outcomes for the voters of the City of Melbourne. Abolishing the group voting system will ensure that voters are represented by councillors who have received the highest primary vote.

Bev McARTHUR: We are supporting this amendment.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will definitely be supporting this amendment. This is something we actually had an amendment on, and we thank the government for working constructively on this. I think we have been through a debate very recently about why group voting tickets are completely undemocratic, so I think it is quite fitting that we finish the job and get rid of them from all jurisdictions now by removing them from the City of Melbourne as well.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, I invite you to move amendments 1 and 2 on your sheet BM09C, which test all amendments on that sheet.

Bev McARTHUR: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, line 21, omit “valuation.” and insert “valuation; and”.

2.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 21 insert –

“(c) to amend the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to enable a vacancy in the office of Deputy Lord Mayor to be filled by appointment.”.

Ingrid STITT: The government will be supporting Mrs McArthur’s amendment.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will also be supporting this amendment.

Amendments agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Mansfield, I invite you to move amendment 1 on your sheet SMA93C, which tests all the remaining amendments on that sheet.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, before line 17 insert –

“(ab) to amend the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to reduce entitlement to be enrolled on the voters’ roll without application; and”.

This amendment is related to the automatic enrolment of owners and occupiers of rateable properties, including corporations, on the electoral roll in the City of Melbourne. As I mentioned in my second-reading contribution, at the moment the City of Melbourne has a very unusual voting system, particularly when it comes to corporations. I have another amendment related to some of the problems, and they are actually quite linked, but we will deal with them separately. At the moment businesses get two votes – their votes count for two. But another feature in the electoral provisions in the City of Melbourne Act is that owner-occupiers who are not residents in the municipal area are automatically added to the electoral roll without even having to apply. That is very different to every other local government area, where owners or occupiers have to apply to be put on the electoral roll for elections. It gets even stranger when it comes to owners and occupiers who happen to be corporations. Where no corporate representatives have been nominated, section 9D of the City of Melbourne Act requires the chief executive officer to trawl through public lists of company directors and secretaries and just appoint two corporate representatives to the electoral roll without their prior consent.

This amendment repeals these oddly unique automatic appointment and enrolment provisions for the City of Melbourne. Under the amendment owners and occupiers, including representatives from corporations, will continue to be able to have themselves put on the electoral roll under the existing provisions in the act. It just will not be automatic or done without their knowledge. This is consistent with the system used for all other local government areas under the Local Government Act and in all other jurisdictions in Australia.

Ingrid STITT: The government will be supporting this amendment. The government is undertaking work to review the entire City of Melbourne Act to ensure that it is fit for purpose. This is certainly one of the issues that would have been subject to that review, and we are happy to accept the Greens’ amendment.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will be supporting this amendment. Effectively it is a voluntary voting amendment. We do not support compulsory voting, and I am glad to hear that the Greens are sort of coming around to our point of view on this.

Bev McARTHUR: We will not be supporting the Greens’ amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Mansfield, I invite you to move amendments 1 and 2 on your sheet SMA83C, which test all the remaining amendments on that sheet.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, line 21, omit “valuation.” and insert “valuation; and”.

2.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 21 insert –

“(c) to amend the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to reduce the entitlement of a Corporation that is an owner or occupier of rateable property to be enrolled on the voters’ roll to one.”.

These deal with one of the other major issues at the City of Melbourne, where currently business votes are double weighted. Effectively one vote counts as two for businesses. For the life of me I do not understand how anyone could think that this is fair or reasonable in a democracy – that one class of voter’s vote is valued at double the weight of another, of any ordinary resident voting in the same system. This type of voting was previously abolished in Melbourne in 1969. It was reintroduced by Jeff Kennett in 1993, and successive governments have retained it despite multiple reviews of the City of Melbourne Act. The City of Sydney got rid of it three years ago, along with automatic enrolment, and as I said in my second-reading contribution, the local government minister in New South Wales at the time they abolished this described this voting system as something of which North Korea would be proud. It is plain as day that this should go. It is simple: one resident, one vote, one value. It is basic democracy. It is way past time that we got rid of this double voting for any class of voter anywhere, but we have got this problem in the City of Melbourne. We have got an opportunity right before us to get rid of it. We have just dealt with the automatic enrolment. It would make a lot of sense to get rid of this provision as well.

David ETTERSHANK: This is a longstanding outrage. I remember in Melbourne when Kennett brought this back people were just gobsmacked. It has all the hallmarks of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. It is effectively a form of gerrymandering, so we will definitely be supporting this one vote, one value.

Ingrid STITT: The government supports the intention of this amendment to give one vote, one value to the people of the City of Melbourne, but we believe the best vehicle through which to make this change is a comprehensive review of the City of Melbourne Act. Given the act is 25 years old, it is due for a comprehensive refresh. The government is commencing this review as soon as possible this term of government, with work already underway, and should the government be returned after the election, the findings of that review will be legislated prior to the 2028 council elections.

Bev McARTHUR: The coalition will not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on amendments:

Clause 2 (19:56)

Bev McARTHUR: I move:

3.   Clause 2, line 23, omit “Part and Division 1 of Part 2” and insert “Part, Division 1 of Part 2 and section 45AA”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (19:57)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Mansfield, I invite you to move amendments 1 and 3 on your sheet SMA91C, which test your amendment 15 on the same sheet.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

1.   Clause 4, after line 8 insert –

“gambling industry business entity has the meaning given by section 305C;”.

3.   Clause 4, after line 10 insert –

‘prohibited donor has the meaning given by section 305A;

property developer has the meaning given by section 305B;”.’.

There are a number of amendments linked, as you said, to this one. These amendments essentially properly acquit some of the recommendations from Operation Sandon as well as address an ongoing integrity risk that exists in local government with respect to donations. Again, this Parliament has been through reforms of donations for state election candidates on multiple occasions, but there are very few boundaries on local government candidate donations. What these amendments would do is put a cap on donations, and it just matches the state election candidate cap. We think that is pretty reasonable. Currently it is uncapped, as I spoke about in my second-reading contribution, so very large donations can be made which can create significant real or perceived conflicts of interest and certainly increase the risk of corruption, which was something that Sandon identified.

This also introduces a ban on certain high-risk donors, for example, property developers in particular, as well as gambling industry business entities. These types of donors potentially stand to benefit significantly from decisions made by councils, and donations carry a heightened risk of corruption. This is something that was also identified in Operation Sandon. Bans on these donor classes already exist in New South Wales and Queensland. They have been tested in the High Court, in respect of New South Wales. They were found to be constitutional. Given the very high risk of corruption, particularly in local government, when you think about something like property developers and the frequent planning decisions that are made by councillors and representatives and administrators in local government, having a ban on property developers – I think there is a reason that has been introduced in other jurisdictions.

We also have called for real-time donations disclosures. We think that is very sensible. It exists in other jurisdictions. It allows voters to know who is making donations while the election is still being conducted, which increases transparency and empowers the voters. We think this set of amendments is, again, really overdue. This is something we have moved many times. We are not the only ones that have called for it. We have had an IBAC investigation – the longest running one in the state – that came to similar conclusions. It is well past time we put some boundaries around donations in local government. We think this would be a really good opportunity to do it.

David ETTERSHANK: I would like to endorse Dr Mansfield’s comments. Look, there has been a bit of a pitch here on this bill about implementation of Sandon, and it has pretty much been oversold, I would suggest. We have seen repeatedly – and it has had extensive media coverage – that the City of Melbourne Future Melbourne Committee has lost quorum because there are so many councillors who have taken donations from developers, and that is what we are talking about. This amendment is that controversial. I can only encourage my colleagues here by saying do not worry; you do not have to be brave. This has been tested in the High Court, and it is standard operating procedure in New South Wales and Queensland. And why wouldn’t we demonstrate a little courage and actually walk the walk in terms of transparency and integrity and support this amendment?

Ingrid STITT: The government supports the intention of this amendment but intends to undertake a review to ensure the best version of these reforms can be achieved. Work has already begun within the Department of Government Services, and the government will have more to say about this review in the coming weeks, with the review commencing in this term of government.

Bev McARTHUR: The opposition will not be supporting the Greens’ amendment.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarians will not be supporting this amendment either. Our reason here is that we think it is actually a dangerous thing to go selecting industries – the Greens often do this – that should not participate in the democratic process. I would say that the one industry that has participated in the democratic process to the point of having their own members of Parliament represent them is the renewables industry, and I note the Greens do not say anything about that. I think this really is just picking and choosing.

A member interjected.

David LIMBRICK: If you do not think that the renewables industry has influence on government, then you are not paying attention, clearly. Also, the cap on donations – I feel that this is arbitrary, and we in principle do not support that. I do, however, support the idea of real-time transparency, but as that is not separated out, I will be opposing this amendment.

Council divided on amendments:

Clause 12 (20:07)

Bev McARTHUR: I move:

8.   Clause 12, page 8, line 4, omit “premises.” and insert “premises, other than in a personal or private capacity.”.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

New clauses 18A and 18B (20:11)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

2.   Insert the following New Clauses to follow Clause 18 –

‘18A Internal arbitration process

After section 141(2)(d) of the Principal Act insert –

“(da)   any requirements of guidelines published under section 149(1)(ca);”.

18B Application for an internal arbitration process

In section 143(3) of the Principal Act, for “3 months” substitute “6 months”.’.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I just have a couple of questions about this amendment. This amendment says that the PCCRwill publish guidelines essentially if they decide they want to publish them. What will the PCCR’s arbitration guidelines set out to ensure that there is consistency of decision-making in arbitration? One of the key issues is that there is perceived inconsistency with arbitration decisions. We were hoping we would see an amendment that would ensure that there are some sort of published guidelines that show how decisions were made by arbiters and that arbiters can refer to in order to make their decisions and that it is transparent for everyone to see.

Ingrid STITT: The intention of the guidelines is that they will ensure consistency and give arbiters clarity on what they must take into consideration when making a finding of misconduct or directing or suspending a councillor. Without pre-empting the decisions of the PCCR, it is the government’s expectation that all matters that may reasonably lead to a finding of misconduct be included.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just a further question: in terms of whether someone disputes the finding of an arbiter, at the moment the only pathway is to go to the Supreme Court. You indicated earlier that the government was not opposed to looking at other options, but is there going to be any other dispute resolution pathway developed for councillors who do not agree with an arbiter’s decision?

Ingrid STITT: The government will review what other dispute resolution pathways could be explored in future reforms to support pathways other than appeals to the Supreme Court in cases where arbitration is unsuccessful.

Bev McARTHUR: We are supporting the government’s amendment.

New clauses agreed to; clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 (20:14)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

3.   Clause 21, after line 3 insert –

‘(a) after paragraph (c) insert –

“(ca)   publish any guidelines in relation to the interpretation and application of the Model Councillor Code of Conduct for the purposes of internal arbitration process applications that the Principal Councillor Conduct Registrar has determined to be necessary;”.’.

4.   Clause 21, line 4, omit “(a)” and insert “(b)”.

5.   Clause 21, line 10, omit “(b)” and insert “(c)”.

Bev McARTHUR: We will be supporting the government’s amendments.

Sarah MANSFIELD: In light of the answers to the previous questions, we will be supporting these amendments. We feel that this will help to deal with some of the issues that have happened with inconsistent decisions in arbitration.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party also will be supporting these. As was outlined by Dr Mansfield, there have been inconsistent decisions, and I think the publication of these guidelines will be helpful in that process.

David Davis: On a point of order, Deputy President, Ms Terpstra has a slinky/yo-yo device. I am not exactly sure what it is, but she has been using it in the chamber. There is a general prohibition on props, but this seems to go a little further than that. Maybe she would like to explain what the device is and what it does.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I just ask Ms Terpstra to stop playing with whatever toy she has in the chamber and to keep it out of sight.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 22 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 (20:17)

Bev McARTHUR: I invite members to vote against this clause.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting this amendment. IBAC, in its Operation Sandon special report – in the bill relating to CEO employment contracts, the government is committed to ensuring that Victorians can have confidence in the integrity of council decision-making, and this is an important reform to do so.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before we move on: Ms Terpstra, I did ask you to put that toy away, please. If you can put it out of sight, that would be appreciated.

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There has been a point of order raised about it, and I have asked you to put it out of sight. I did see you playing with it while the minister was speaking, so could you please put it on the bench. No, not that bench. The seat – the bench seat.

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Put it out of sight on the velvet seat, please. We will just sit here until Ms Terpstra can put her toy down.

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I know you are looking at your phone. I have asked you to put the toy that is in your other hand on the seat beside you, please.

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is a desk. The red benches are the seats we sit on.

Sonja Terpstra: You can’t tell me what to do and what I can hold in my hand. What standing order are you relying on?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, it is a prop, and you were playing with it.

Sonja Terpstra: It is not a prop, and you can’t tell me what I can hold in my hand.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You were playing with it. We have asked you not to play with it.

Sonja Terpstra: I was not playing with anything, and you were not looking.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I saw it. You stretched it out.

Council divided on clause:

Clause 28 (20:23)

Bev McARTHUR: I invite members to vote against this clause.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on clause:

Clause 31 (20:27)

Bev McARTHUR: I invite members to vote against this clause.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on clause:

Clause 32 (20:31)

Bev McARTHUR: I move:

28.   Clause 32, after line 2 insert –

‘(a) in paragraph (a), before “disclosure” insert “, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the conflict of interest,”;’.

29.   Clause 32, line 3, omit “(a)” and insert “(b)”.

30.   Clause 32, line 5, omit “(b)” and insert “(c)”.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting these amendments. They are in respect to disclosure of conflicts of interest and would affect the reforms that the government is seeking to bring, which were recommendations made by IBAC in its Operation Sandon special report. It is interesting that the opposition would be seeking to water down the effect of the government’s commitment to implement the recommendations of an IBAC report.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to; clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 (20:32)

Bev McARTHUR: I invite members to vote against this clause.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting the omission of this clause.

Clause agreed to; clauses 35 to 44 agreed to.

New clauses 44A to 44D (20:34)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

6.   Insert the following New Clauses before Clause 45 –

‘44A Section 6B repealed

Section 6B of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 is repealed.

44B New section 7A inserted

After section 7 of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 insert –

“7A   Application of Divisions 6 and 7 of the Local Government Act 2020

(1)   To avoid doubt, Division 6 of Part 8 of the Local Government Act 2020 applies to the election of a single Councillor.

Note

See also section 18 in relation to the Lord Mayor and the Deputy Lord Mayor.

(2)   To avoid doubt, Division 7 of Part 8 of the Local Government Act 2020 applies to the election of 2 or more Councillors, including for the purposes of a general election.”.

44C How votes to be counted

Section 18(2) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 is repealed.

44D Schedules 1, 2 and 3 repealed

Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the City of Melbourne Act 2001 are repealed.’.

These are consequential amendments to reflect the repeal of group voting ticket provisions in the City of Melbourne Act 2001.

New clauses agreed to.

New clause 45AA (20:35)

Bev McARTHUR: I move:

4.   Insert the following New Clause before clause 45 –

‘45AA Filling of vacancies

(1) In section 24(1) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001omit “or Deputy Lord Mayor”.

(2) After section 24(1) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 insert –

“(1A)   If the office of Deputy Lord Mayor becomes vacant 6 months or more before a general election is due, the Council must appoint a Councillor to fill the vacancy.

(1B)   If the Council appoints a Councillor to fill a vacancy under subsection (1A), an extraordinary vacancy occurs in the office of the Councillor on the date of the appointment and section 259 of the Local Government Act 2020 does apply.”.’.

Ingrid STITT: This is a consequential one for the City of Melbourne deputy lord mayor, and we will support this amendment.

New clause agreed to; clause 45 agreed to.

New clauses 46AA to 46AJ (20:35)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

2.   Insert the following New Part after Part 4 –

‘Part 4A – Further amendment of City of Melbourne Act 2001

46AA Persons entitled to be enrolled without application

Section 9A(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 are repealed.

46AB Persons entitled to be enrolled

(1) In section 9B(2) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001, omit “section 9A(3) and”.

(2) In section 9B(3) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001, omit “section 9A(5) and”.

46AC Section 9D repealed

Section 9D of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 is repealed.

46AD Limitations on right of entitlement

In section 9E(1) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001, omit “9A(3), 9A(5),”.

46AE Section 9F repealed

Section 9F of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 is repealed.

46AF Request that address not be shown

In section 10(1) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 omit “9A(3), 9A(5),”.

46AG Chief Executive Officer to prepare voters’ list

In section 11A(2) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 omit “9A(3), 9A(5),”.

46AH Public notification

Section 11C(1)(b)(iii) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 is repealed.

46AI Preparation of voters’ rolls

In section 11D(4)(b) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001, for “9A(3), 9A(5), 9B, 9C or 9D” substitute “9B or 9C”.

46AJ Compulsory voting

Section 19(5) of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 is repealed.’.

This is consequential to the amendment that passed previously about automatic enrolment.

New clauses agreed to; clause 46 agreed to.

Long title (20:36)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

7.   Long title, after “2001” insert “to remove group voting tickets from the election of Councillors,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Bev McARTHUR: I move:

5.   Long title, after valuation insert “, to enable a vacancy in the office of Deputy Lord Mayor to be filled by appointment”.

Amendment agreed to.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

3.   Long title, before “and for other purposes” insert “, to reduce entitlement to be enrolled on the voters’ roll without application”.

Amendment agreed to; amended long title agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments, including amended long title.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Special Minister of State) (20:38): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Special Minister of State) (20:38): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on motion:

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the bill has been agreed to with amendment.