|
October 30, 2014
The Local Government Association of Queensland’s annual State Conference in Mackay today endorsed two motions put up by the South Burnett Regional Council aimed at updating the complaints process against councillors.
Council representatives from all over Queensland overwhelmingly endorsed both motions which call on the State Government to make changes to the Local Government Act.
South Burnett Mayor Wayne Kratzmann said the first motion, if adopted by the government, would empower Council Chief Executive Officers to carry out a preliminary assessment on the validity of a complaint lodged against a councillor.
At the moment, most complaints are automatically referred to the Department of Local Government’s Regional Conduct Review Panel (RCRP) who then must conduct an investigation.
The cost of that investigation – which is usually about $9000 – is billed back to Council, even if the complaint is dismissed.
“If the CEO can say after a preliminary investigation that the complaint is improbable, there would be no real cost to ratepayers,” Mayor Kratzmann said.
The second motion would ensure a councillor who is being investigated would have the right to appear before the Panel, and would have the right to appeal a Panel decision. Mayor Kratzmann said this motion was endorsed with no debate.
The two motions were among 118 considered by the LGAQ State Conference.
Cr Damien Tessmann said today it felt good to have validation from the other councils in Queensland that reform is needed.
“A number of councillors and mayors have contacted me, giving me their support and telling me stories,” he said.
“This is a problem that is not just isolated to the South Burnett. I believe the vote was overwhelming which makes a big statement … and will put pressure on the Minister to act.”
Cr Tessmann said he had lobbied as many people as he could about the issue.
“Every step I have taken I have had positive replies,” he said.
“Change comes slowly, I guess, but I will keep banging away.”
Cr Tessmann said it was great to get the endorsement from the LGAQ that there was a problem to be solved, but it was also nice to get support from members of the community.
“Now we will see what happens,” he said.
* * *
The motions:
Submitted by the South Burnett Regional Council:
That the Local Government Association of Queensland request the State Government amend the Local Government Act 2009 section 176B (4) relating to a chief executive officer’s and/or a Department’s chief executive’s requirement to undertake a ‘preliminary investigation’ of a complaint received by providing guidelines on the process to follow when conducting a preliminary investigation.
* * *
Submitted by the SBRC and Lockyer Valley Regional Council:
That the Local Government Association of Queensland call on the State Government to strengthen the Local Government Act 2009 by applying principles of ‘natural justice’ for democratically elected representatives of Australia’s third level of government by allowing:
(a) A councillor to appear as of right before a Regional Conduct Review Panel hearing to respond to a complaint made against them to speak on their own behalf through an amendment to Section 179(4) of the Act; and
(b) An ability to appeal through either the Queensland Civil & Administrative Tribunal, or some kind of appeal mechanism deemed appropriate by the Minister for Local Government through an amendment to Section 176(9) of the Local Government Act 2009.
Related articles:
The Chief Executive Officer [CEO] of a council cannot be seen as independent nor neutral as to investigations into councillor impropriety. The CEO is appointed by councillors and employed to implement policy under direction of a councillor or councillors being investigated. The assumption that a Chief Executive Officer can act or is willing to act on complaints in a bipartisan manner to investigate allegations of misconduct or corruption is unlikely. Any decision made by the Chief Executive Officer will be subject to appraisal and influenced by all councillors before referral to any relevant authority. Council Chief Executive Officer will be seen as defensive of council and complacent in any defence of a councillor under investigation for impropriety. External forces acting on behalf of those associated with any allegation will endeavor to influence any outcome by lobbying councillors and the Chief Executive Officer directly or indirectly to facilitate a favorable outcome. Councillor Tessmann supported by his fellow South Burnett Shire councillors are the principle advocates for changes to any external independent investigations.
A prime example is the recent handling of a complaint by the Mayor of Mount Isa.Google for the story
Jack – you ought to familiarise yourself with the Local Government Act. The CEO is already required to make a preliminary assessment on whether the complaint is a) frivolous b) without basis c) should be sent to the CCC. The change being asked for calls on the CEO to perform a preliminary investigation (ie talk to the Councillor to get their side of the story) before making the call on what should be the next step rather than just taking the complainant’s word that the Councillor is guilty and sending it down to Brisbane for a $10 000+ investigation cost at ratepayer expense. I am more than happy to discuss this matter with you in person given you have such strong objections.
[The CEO is already required to make a preliminary assessment on whether the complaint is a) frivolous b) without basis c) should be sent to the CCC.]
The CEO investigated the complaint and referred the matter to the CCC. The CCC also has independently investigated the complaint and made its decision.
Most councils in Queensland obviously think the current complaints system is flawed. I don’t think the current goings-on in Mt Isa are relevant since they’re a complaint about the CEO not about councillors.
Personally I’d feel better if there was just a tad more independence in the assessment process but I agree with the broad thrust of this proposal because in the last few years I’ve seen a small handful of people lodge a string of complaints, most of which have been thrown out. I wouldn’t mind an external investigation if it were cost-free but at $9000 each, these people have cost ratepayers like me at least $45,000 and maybe more.