Dear Minister,
YOUR portfolio should be a proud one, representing as it does the tier of government so close to the people it has long been dubbed grass roots government.
But it seems you are doing your best to uproot that form of government – and robbing voters of their rights to representation.
The way you are blundering your way through controversies enveloping conflict of interest (COI) provisions in section 173 of the new Local Government Act has echoes of a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.
For instance there is your refusal to answer valid questions about the Scenic Rim Regional Council’s interpretation of the laws in relation to Cr Derek Swanborough?
He was expelled from a Council meeting because fellow Councillors ruled he had a personal interest in the Tamborine Mountain Progress Association. And that was held to be in conflict with the public interest.
When we asked you specific questions about this in an email – and pointed out that Cr Swanborough was not a member of the Tamborine Progress Association – you gave the same reply to each question, namely: “Questions about specific cases should be referred to the Scenic Rim Regional Council. However, I would say that when it comes to Conflict of Interest it is better to err on the side of caution. Councillors have a responsibility to maintain high standards of integrity and transparency. Rarely are good projects decided on a single vote.”
This suggests you are empowering Councils to police the new law as well as judging any alleged breaches. Imagine the public outrage if you handed the same powers to our police force?
Such a process opens the door to injustice through the exploitation of personal vendettas. The abuses that can arise from such a situation are so obvious it’s incredible that any responsible Minister of State could countenance them.
We agree that ‘Councillors have a responsibility to maintain high standards of integrity and transparency’. But you are expecting Caesar to judge Caesar in leaving such responsibilities to individual Councils, with no recourse to appeal against their decisions.
And your statement that, ‘Rarely are good projects decided on a single vote,’ was a most disappointing piece of sophistry.
In effect you are disenfranchising people who one lone Councillor may represent by implying that if the other Councillors are prepared to vote him/her out of a meeting they must have a good reason for not wanting to hear his/her argument.
Cr Swanborough was excluded from a discussion on a matter of interest to the people in his Division based on the publication of his appearance in a photograph with members of an Association, Cr Brent was excluded from a discussion on a bridge because it was close to his home and business, Councillors excluded themselves from discussions on grant allocations to community groups in their Divisions - all due to your legislation.
Yet when we asked you whether it followed that a COI would arise for a Mayor or Councillor if they had been photographed with a community group or individual, or used a bridge or road to access their home or business, you replied:
“It is incorrect to say that any Mayor or Councillor will have a conflict of interest for merely being photographed with a community group or because they use a bridge to access their home or business.
“It is up to a Council to consider the circumstance of each case to decide whether a conflict of interest exists.”
However, this means if a Council makes an unjust decision, the subsequent discussion and voting is completed without the on-the-ground input of a Councillor who is traditionally looked to by fellow Councillors to give background information, and to advocate on behalf of their Division.
And, as we have said, that Councillor has no right of appeal.
This clearly demonstrates the inadequacy, dare we say stupidity, of the new legislation. Because in the Scenic Rim the precedent has been set: if the Mayor or a Councillor is photographed with a community group, or uses a road or bridge to access their business or home, then common law justice dictates that they should be excluded from any discussion on that group or piece of infrastructure - no matter how unjust that may be.
For their part the Councillors claim they are simply following the provisions of the Act. But the intent of that Act is to prevent opportunities for corruption – not provide an opportunity to gag someone from representing the public interest rather than the interests of Council.
The Councillors, though, are confident of your support. And after you referred to ‘personal’ and ‘sectoral’ interests in our communications we asked you to define them.
You replied: “A personal interest is akin to a hobby or pastime. It could be a Councillor has a personal interest in rugby league as a fan and as a member of, or an association with, a rugby league club.
“A sectoral interest is where a Councillor has an affiliation with the views of a sector of the community. If a Councillor cannot separate their sectoral or personal interest from the public interest, or it would appear that they cannot, [then] when a matter of that group or organisation is before Council for a decision, they must declare it.”
This is a monstrous piece of legislation in that it debars a Councillor from doing his bread and butter job of representing the views of his community – sectoral (or sectorial) opinions are important, too.
It is also in direct conflict with the accepted free speech rights of a people’s representative. And the act of dividing public interest into sectors has alarming overtones of an autocracy.
You must be aware Minister that one definition of fascism is: “A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.”
Interestingly, nowhere in the new Local Government Act can we find a definition of ‘sectoral interests’. Possibly it has been included as an annotation or in a schedule, but there is no reference to indicate that.
There is a definition of a material personal interest (MOI), which applies to the Councillor, spouses, family members, partners, employers, any non-government entity of which the Councillor or his/her nominee is a member, or any other person prescribed under a regulation.
The obvious and admirable intent of this section of the Act, and that dealing with a COI, is to toughen up the laws designed to prevent any opportunities for corruption. That does not mean it should stifle opportunities for democratic debate.
Yet that is what can happen when Councillors gang up on a colleague, using majority numbers and hearsay evidence for their COI advocacy, to have their ‘victim’ expelled.
The crux of the Act can be summed up by reducing the (a) and (b) subclauses of the COI section to its basic concept that ‘a personal interest is a conflict if it is contrary to the public interest’.
SRRC Councillor, Richard Adams, has appealed to the people to protest over anomalies in the Act.
But it shouldn’t take People Power to overturn legislation that tries to right the wrongs of corruption in Councils by ‘wronging’ the rights of Councillors to fairly represent the interests of their communities.
If that law were applied to the second tier of government, State MPs would not be allowed to argue for improvements in their communities because they could be held to have a sectoral interest.
If you don’t want to be remembered as the most inept Local Government Minister in Queensland history Ms Boyle, it’s time you made some much-needed amendments to the new Local Government Act allowing greater Government scrutiny of its application, and appeals against unfair expulsions of Councillors that clearly discriminate against the public interest.