News - Political Speeches

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- I rise to make some comments on what is a very topical bill, given that, as other members have alluded to, the close of nominations for council elections was at 12.00 p.m. today. The ballot draws took place at 2.00 p.m., and I believe there are probably many households and computers working overtime to devise pamphlets -- particularly because of the short time lines -- for those who face postal vote elections as opposed to those who are subject to attendance elections. It is the first time that there will be a four-year term for councillors.

Let me say at the outset to the Acting President and members of the chamber what I think of this government's performance in the area of this vital sector of local government, which most of us who have come from or have had some experience of believe is the grassroots expression of democracy and provides an enormous opportunity for members of the community to participate in the local decision making that affects the community most directly.

Basically, as Mr Vogels said, it is a very large sector, with $5.7 billion in revenue collected annually. He has made mention of the number of people employed in the sector -- it is something like 50 000 people, and there are 79 councils. He mentioned that 635 councillors will be elected, and all of those will be lucky. We have seen some very big fields. Just on rough calculations I imagine that we could have something like 3500 candidates, each paying $250. Some, of course, are more serious than others.

Dare I say my view is that this government's administration of local government for the past nine years has been very disappointing. In fact many of the significant changes have destroyed grassroots democracy, have discouraged participation and have made a political cesspool of local government. There is a reason for that. I will come back to why I think parts of this bill are imperative and to why it is obviously crucial to support the amendment proposed by Mr Hall on behalf of the opposition, which is supported by Greg Barber. I certainly hope the government accepts the proposed amendment.

There is significant community concern about this. Guess why?

It is because the 3500 people who are contesting these supposedly democratic local council elections are all handing out pamphlets, making commitments, making statements and making pledges. They have an agenda and a platform. According to some of this government's documentation, those things may be construed as bias and an unwavering commitment.

I have an unwavering commitment to standards, ethics, disclosure and serving a community. I am not very fussed about people coming into local government on a single issue or out of self-interest as long as they do not breach those basic rules about political competition -- that is, as long as they do not overstep the mark.

Two important principles have operated in local government. In 1992, when the Kennett government was first elected, 62 per cent of those who were part of the Kennett government had a local government background.

So it is a very important sector from the point of view of allowing local people to be involved in local decisions and to pursuing that course further if they wish. I have no difficulty with that, because I think that if through the role of representing a community you are actually doing it in good faith, effectively and with commitment, it exposes you to a range of people from community organisations and to issues that often broaden that single issue agenda. I am not that averse to people having an agenda as long as it is up-front.

The two tests that have traditionally been applied are, firstly, pecuniary interest. The other one, which is common sense, is that you have to not only disclose that interest but be seen to not have a conflict of interest. That is a broader test. The basic advice that was given to me when I was first elected to -- --

Mr Vogels -- Acting President, it seems there is not one Labor MP interested in this bill. We have not heard any government speakers yet. The Minister for Environment and Climate Change is in the house, but I draw your attention to the state of the house.

Quorum formed.

Mrs PEULICH -- I thank Mr Vogels for generating an audience for me. He considered that what I was saying was worthy of an audience. It was very generous of him.

These are the views held by people who are involved in local government, who are candidates and who are involved in various community organisations, some of whom may be involved in current elections.

But let me say that the reforms that this government has presided over have actually diminished the level of democratic participation available to people who are ordinary members of the community.

Before I go on to talk about that issue, I was referring to the two tests which most people have applied in the past as to whether a direct financial pecuniary interest exists. Another one is: if you are not certain and are in doubt, get out. This, fortunately, has been a very strong rule in the past until this government came to office, the reason being -- and Mr Vogels was absolutely spot on in questioning this -- the unwillingness to act. The government is fully cognisant of the range of problems that plague this sector. We have had a number of reports and probably more paper than common sense, and more paper than any concrete sort of action in the area of local government administration.

We had the Ombudsman's inquiry into a conflict of interest in local government.

Obviously some of those ideas have been picked up. It was long overdue, because the government is singular and one-eyed about how it administers the rules. If a councillor or a council is not friendly or supportive, or not a cheer squad for the government, it comes down on them like a tonne of bricks, but if they are the government's own people, it turns a blind eye. It becomes a cesspool of Labor Party politics where local communities are betrayed, deceived and lied to. To see that, all you have to do is look at some of the nomination statements that come out in the handbooks.

In some councils you have a field of it, and it is very disappointing that Labor is now opting for endorsing entire tickets for local governments. The City of Greater Dandenong had a number of meetings, and there was a real tussle between the Left and the Right when these meetings were being convened by my colleague Mr Somyurek, probably to iron out who was going to be no. 1, no. 2 and no. 3.

Unfortunately a lot of the time the Socialist Left candidates were left out of the configuration.

This has made a political cesspool of local government. It has been done by adopting multi-council wards and proportional representation. Some of those wards have anywhere between 16 000 and 20 000 households. Others have anywhere from 11 000 people to 24 000 or 25 000 people, or more. They are almost equivalent in size to a lower house seat, which has approximately 34 000 voters. Where would an ordinary person who wants to take part in the democratic process find the sort of money needed to be able to take advantage of postal vote ballots and have a pamphlet distributed in a very short time to every household? They cannot, and so local government has been politicised to the detriment of the sector.

That has gone further, and for the first time we are going to have four-year terms. Democracy can be messy, it can be a real pain in the butt, but this process takes away that little vent where local pressure, local issues and local views can be expressed as they were before the adoption of triennial elections of all councillors, which in hindsight, in my view -- all out at the same time -- was a retrograde step. The reason is that when there was an annual election and only one person was coming for election within a ward where you might have three councillors, the local community had muscle; it had a voice. Every year it could actually get its issues onto the political agenda.

Now the government and officers of the Office of Local Government -- nicely ensconced in the box over there! -- have to make sure local councils conduct community satisfaction surveys to find out what people think. They survey 200 people in a municipality. What a disgrace! The reason they need to have satisfaction surveys is because many of them do not have a clue and do not care.

Moving to a four-year term will make them even more remote and is basically going to encourage complete politicisation of that level of government which is closest to the people. Who else can afford to take part?

The government's track record, as I said, was scathing. From the report on performance in local government conducted and tabled in June this year by the Auditor-General, it is clear that this government has failed to put in place performance indicators by allowing the focus for a number of years to be merely on key strategic activities. Basically no-one really knows what outputs have been achieved with the enormous amount of money that has been collected. In my region, the South Eastern Metropolitan Region, which is also served by the President, Bob Smith, Gavin Jennings, Adem Somyurek and my colleague Gordon Rich-Phillips, there has been a 100 per cent increase in rates since 1999. It is a disgraceful fact and a burden that is worn by families who can least afford it, and of course, by business as well.

What does this bill do? It continues the erosion of local democracy. Fortunately the means by which it was going to further or gut it have been exposed in sufficient time to allow this house to fulfil its duty as a house of review and expose this government's attempt to basically knobble local government. I concur with most of what Mr Barber said about the offending clauses, and I am delighted to hear that the Greens and the DLP are both supporting our amendment.

I do not necessarily disagree with further amendments, although the opposition does not yet have a position in relation to the publication of information on the internet. If you are a public figure, unfortunately if you put your hand up, you have to be accountable and you cannot hide. I certainly support that and all that has been said by the shadow Minister for Local Government in the Assembly, the member for Shepparton, Mrs Powell, who raised concerns about what objectors would face if they did make a written or even a verbal submission on any item. If you read the provision, it could apply to verbal submissions.

For example, ratepayers associations -- and we have a lot of them -- typically would make all sorts of submissions. Local government advertises and calls for submissions on, say, the budget as part of its consultation process. All those people would technically be disqualified if they found themselves elected to local government. It is deplorable, it is unjustifiable, and it has got to be excised, but it has got to be excised or agreed to in this chamber because the rest of the bill should proceed.

It should proceed because there is an enormous number of examples of where Labor councillors in particular -- I will not say exclusively -- have misbehaved. Very serious breaches of the various codes of conduct have occurred. The government has known about it, but has failed to take action.

I completely support the Ombudsman's recommendation that the provisions in relation to conflict of interest be clarified.

In particular, given my earlier comments and my disappointment that the local government sector has been politicised, I think the important provision here is the concept of a conflict of duty. If you are a card-carrying member of a political party and you are elected to local government, you have to make sure you understand what you are there for.

The Liberal Party does not endorse candidates for local government; we encourage people to take an active part in local government. We have had this debate at our conference on many occasions and we do not believe in endorsing Liberal candidates, because we believe local government should not be constrained by party-political allegiance. This is in stark contrast to the Labor Party, and I believe it gives a local representative much greater liberty to vote on issues as they see fit, without the requirement to caucus. The Labor Party's membership form states that members, if elected to local government and if there are two or more Labor Party members, have to caucus on key issues. That includes the budget and the appointment of the mayor and the chief executive officer. Let me tell you that all hell breaks loose when these caucus decisions are broken.

We have an outstanding example of that in what in the past was a very solid council despite many of its challenges -- that is, the City of Casey.

I have had enormous amounts of communication about some of the things that have been going on in Casey. I will not cite much of the material I have received. Over the weekend I received a full and comprehensive report, dated 17 October 2008, from Worklogic, a consultancy that has been investigating complaints made by a former staff member of the City of Casey against a Labor councillor from that council. This Labor councillor works for a Labor member of Parliament. The Labor member of Parliament is the parliamentary secretary to the Premier. It is a very serious breach that has been substantiated. The consultancy established the pattern of conduct, but I bet my bottom dollar that the report will go into the circular file and we will not hear anything about it. There has been a string of correspondence about information that has been breached.

I will not cite further details of that, because I want to protect the confidentiality of the victim in this instance.

The more recent instance at Brookland Greens estate -- the crisis involving methane gas leaking from an unlined pit in Stevensons Road -- has crystallised how conflict of duty exists and operates to the detriment of the community. Cr Kevin Bradford, an employee of Luke Donnellan, the member for Narre Warren North in the Assembly, has been actively sabotaging any attempts to have an open and independent inquiry to establish who is responsible so that the affected residents can have some chance of forcing a negotiated settlement -- to get some sort of compensation, if they are entitled to it, by finding out who is responsible.

What we have had is an Ombudsman's inquiry.

The Ombudsman is not obliged to conduct those inquiries publicly nor to table the report in Parliament, and he cannot investigate the roles of many of the agencies involved. Cr Bradford actually lives on the estate, yet he has moved and seconded motions in relation to actions the council needs to take on the matter. That is an absolute and unequivocal example of a conflict of duty. If he is going to go in there with the support of the party, these rules have to apply.

Unfortunately it is not just about having the rules in place; at the end of the day the government has to have the backbone, the integrity and the commitment to the sector and the community to act on information it has. And it has a lot of information.

I received a copy of a letter from a former member of the Labor Party, Cr Paul Richardson, condemning the government for the manner in which it has handled the methane gas crisis at Brookland Greens estate and condemning the former Minister for Local Government, Candy Broad, for her efforts -- or lack thereof -- during her tenure.

Mrs Coote -- Where is she?

Mrs PEULICH -- She is certainly not here listening.

What does this do? We have a sector that has been neglected and politically manipulated.

The councils' planning powers are going to be stripped away through the establishment of these development assessment committees that are going to be formed, with the minister responsible making determinations about where high-density development is going to occur in commercial strips -- first in 5 commercial areas, and then in another 22. The government is stripping powers from councils.

The proposed new residential code will have three and five-storey developments in residential streets as a starting point. It is all under the radar; no-one is talking about it, because once the elections are over the government will whip it out and it will be policy. That will take away the right of a local government authority to make a decision as to where it believes these developments ought to occur. On one hand the government is stripping powers, while on the other hand it has the remuneration outcomes -- it is going to give councillors more money for doing less work.

I disagree with Mr Vogels. I do not agree that the more you pay people, the better representation you get, because at the end of the day people look on it as just an alternative form of employment. If they do not get stuff printed by their political party and pump it out and make sure they are there like bunnies, lifting up their hand when required -- ho, ho, ho! -- it takes them to the unemployment queue. I think it is a retrograde step. When I was elected to council we got $3000 a year.

Mrs Coote -- Nearly enough for a plasma TV!

Mrs PEULICH -- Especially at current prices. I am not saying I am against it, but I think it shows the government's hypocrisy in relation to the sector. I think the hallmark of the government over the last nine years has been total manipulation. I have talked about the structure and the way it has worked. I agree with Mr Barber that tests of conflict of interest need to be reasonably objective, and obviously the major focus should be on pecuniary interest.

I support wholeheartedly the proposed introduction of a conflict of duties provision, given the politicisation of local government, and look forward to the government being able to report on the progress of this particular provision in the bill.

I support the coalition amendment, which will remove the offending clauses. I thought I would draw the attention of honourable members to another document if they want to have a good belly laugh: it is called Better Local Governance -- Consultation Paper 2007. My favourite document is Ensuring Unbiased Democratic Council Decision Making -- September 2008. I have had a flick through it and I would like to draw the attention of members to a few references. I found this entire document to be patronising, appalling and a waste of paper. On page 1, under the heading 'Decision making in a democratic context', the document says:

Under our democratic system we entrust certain powers and privileges to our elected representatives, but in so doing we require that, as our representatives, they act differently to the way they would act as individuals.

Well, hello! Get out there and clean up your act. Do something about the misbehaviour. Do not write about it; do not talk about it. Do it -- fix it up.

Again on page 2 you can have a real laugh if you are interested, and I quote:

There are a number of aspects to these common-law rules.

This document is aimed at assisting councillors to comply with one aspect of those rules -- the rule that they bring an impartial and open mind to the task of making decisions that affect the rights and interests of others.

There is a requirement to caucus, and that is imposed because Cr Janet Halsall, who broke the rule, was sacked by Judith Graley, the member for Narre Warren South in the Assembly, for doing so. She was instructed to do so, and that is the reason the Labor Party is now waging a turf war at the City of Casey. Do something about it! Change the rules! You cannot have it both ways. I am absolutely appalled at the contempt with which the Labor government and the Labor Party have treated this sector.

The paper goes on with the heading 'Having an open mind does not mean having an empty mind'. If you are obliged to merely put your hand up as an instrument of a political party and are bound by caucus rules, I think you probably do have an empty mind. In my view, you have an empty mind if you are a member of a party that ties up your conscience and does not allow you to have a conscience vote. That is an empty mind. On page 4 under that heading the paper goes on to say:

These views may make them predisposed to favour particular policy outcomes.

When I cast my vote in local government elections I want to know what people stand for. I want to know what their position is on rating policy and infrastructure, and I want them to advocate to other levels of government where they have been silent. There are so many of them that are silent on key issues that nine years later our communities are worse off. I want them to be local advocates. I want them to protect and deliver quality services to the community. I want them to consult and to have integrity, and I want local government customer services to treat their ratepayers, their clients and their constituents or whatever you want to call them with respect. The culture needs a definite shake-out.

I would like to close by saying that the sensible amendment that has been brought forward on behalf of the opposition by Mr Hall to do away with this ridiculous clause that will shut people up should be supported, but we proceed with the bill because, given the hands-off, arms-length approach that this government has taken to local government and the problems that it has allowed to fester, the sector needs something. If there is a legislative implement for forcing some of this through, the amended bill should be supported. I look forward to the government accepting without qualification the amendment that has been put forward.

< Prev		Next >