Queensland Integrity Commissioner speaking at a community event in Redland City, 2018
Queensland Integrity Commissioner Dr Nikola Stepanov will this afternoon be appearing at a televised parliamentary committee hearing as part of an inquiry into the process for dealing with complaints about mayors and local councillors.
Dr Stepanov’s recently announced resignation effective 4 July has contributed to recent controversy about the State Government’s handling of integrity issues.
The Independent Assessor Kathleen Florian and the Councillor Conduct Tribunal President June Anstee will also be appearing as witnesses together with two executive directors of the Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning whose minister is Steven Miles.
The program for today’s hearing says it will be broadcast live on Parliament TV.
Inquiry into handling of complaints
A more rigorous and independent process for dealing with complaints against mayors and local councillors was part of local government reforms instituted by the Palaszczuk Labor Government in 2017.
Since the new arrangements were enacted, the Office of the Independent Assessor (OIA) has been overwhelmed with complaints about mayors and local councillors.
In response to media coverage and public discussion about the role of the OIA as well as submissions from the Queensland Council of Civil Liberties (QCCL) and the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ), Parliament’s State Development and Regional Industries Committee was tasked with inquiring into the functions of the Independent Assessor and the performance of those functions.
Submissions from councillors and community groups
The Committee received 58 submissions from a wide range of individuals and organisations including current and former councillors, local councils and the LGAQ.
Submissions in favour of a rigorous and independent process for investigating local councillor complaints were made by community groups Brisbane Residents United, Redlands2030, the South East Queensland Community Alliance and a joint submission from OSCAR/QLGRA.
Property developers want more engagement
A lobby group for property developers, the Property Council of Australia, submitted that the OIA actively dissuades councillors from engaging with the property industry:
“Concern over the consequences of vexatious complaints has resulted in a culture of over-caution and risk-aversion from local government representatives which is having a detrimental impact on engagement with the property sector.”
LGAQ opposes anonymous complaints
In its submission the LGAQ says “The LGAQ recommends anonymous complaints be automatically rejected”.
Interestingly, the LGAQ’s submission includes several anonymous “case studies” complaining about the current operation of the councillor complaint process.
Here for example are some extracts from the anonymous “COUNCILLOR A” case study.
“The fear of retribution across the Local Government sector is real and is having a significant impact on Councillors being able to perform their role. In some cases it has also extended to the families of Councillors, impacting their livelihoods and relationships. In my opinion the mere fact that I have had to take these steps to protect my anonymity shows the complete breakdown in confidence in the OIA and the need for systemic and wholesale changes.”
“I am pleased to see this inquiry’s Terms of Reference include investigating whether the
powers and resources of the OIA are being applied in accordance with the public interest. In my view the public interest test has not always been applied, with a number of instances of the OIA being used as a political tool by some elected officials and community groups.
On a number of occasions complaints have been lodged and then the details of the complaint released either to the media, through social media or under parliamentary privilege; creating a perception of guilt before the matter has even been investigated.”
And there’s more:
“Additionally, I have serious concerns about the OIA discussing the outcomes of complaints with elected Members of Parliament before a complaint has been finalised. I am personally aware of a situation where the OIA told a sitting MP the outcome of a complaint before the Councillor had been informed of the outcome and potentially before the outcome had been determined. This practice provided an opportunity for the MP to then tell others about the OIA’s decision, encouraging the politicisation of the OIA and further undermining confidence in their ability to act independently and fairly. This practice is unacceptable and is in opposition to natural justice and due process, which should be afforded to all.
This same MP has demonstrated abuse of the process for public political posturing. This
comes at a financial expense to ratepayers and the broader public purse. As the OIA does not always reveal the complainant, I have calculated an estimate of the costs for these complaints (that were dismissed) and Right to Information processes to our local
government. This is calculated on the MP’s public admission of lodging complaints and
amounts to approximately $1000 of ratepayer funds per complaint.”
How can the LGAQ argue for anonymous complaints to be rejected while including anonymous complaints in its submission?
Redlands2030 – 9 February 2022
Update 15 February 2022:
Public Hearing on 9 February of an inquiry by State Parliament’s State Development and Regional Industries Committee into the functions of the Independent Assessor and the performance of those functions:
Submission to the Committee by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal dated 7 February 2022
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
One Comment
This article is a bit out of date, but it seems nothing much has changed. Last week the newspaper wrote that the Council wants the Willard homestead to be developed into a white water facility for the Olympics. This in spite of the fact that a public survey came out in favour of all other options and white water ended in the last place. Isn’t Council supposed to represent the voters?