By Staff Writer
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) has called on the Victorian Coalition to support a proposed amendment in the Upper House to remove the retrospective nature of the legislation to ban councillors from working for Members of Parliament.
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) has called on the Victorian Coalition to support a proposed amendment in the Upper House to remove the retrospective nature of the legislation to ban councillors from working for Members of Parliament.
MAV President, Cr Bill McArthur said the Government’s Conflicting Duties Bill was unfair for both voters and councillors who had been democratically elected by their communities to be stood down through no fault of their own.
“The three Greens members of the Legislative Council, together with DLP member Mr Peter Kavanagh will propose an amendment to the Bill when Parliament resumes in September.
“The MAV supports the move by the Greens and DLP as councillors affected by the legislation were not mentioned in the Ombudsman’s Brimbank Council Report, yet they’ve been unfairly tarred with the same brush.
“Under the Government’s proposal, more than 30 councillors would have seven days to seek alternative employment if they want to continue in their councillor role. This makes a mockery of the democratic election process and is a completely insufficient transition arrangement.
“It would also force ratepayers to incur costs associated with count backs or by-elections to find replacement councillors, which could range from $2000 to more than $50,000, depending on the circumstances.
“The removal of citizens’ rights to participate in public life is excessive and undemocratic. Never before has a Victorian Government sought to ban a person from serving their community based on their employment,” he said.
The MAV has recently received QC legal advice confirming that the Conflicting Duties Bill is a prima facie breach of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act.
The legal advice queried the effectiveness of singling out only one instance where a conflict of duty might occur, given the Ombudsman accepted that conflicting duties may arise in a much wider context. It also warned that the effectiveness of the proposed ban could be restricted to those employed under State law due to a potential conflict with the Commonwealth Constitution for a person employed under Federal legislation.
Cr McArthur said that following receipt of its legal advice, the MAV had written to all political party leaders calling for a more sophisticated and nuanced response to effectively deal with the myriad of instances where a potential conflict of duty may exist.
“The MAV would like to see amendments to the conflict of interest provisions in the Local Government Act, together with the register of interest requirements, to more widely address conflicts of duty that may arise.
“It should be of grave concern to all citizens that a Government can impose a ban that removes the right of some community members to participate in public duties when alternative measures are available to address the concerns highlighted by the Ombudsman,” he said.
Leave a Reply