Fess up, councillors
MP slams Glen Eira spin on report
A LOCAL politician has lashed Glen Eira Council following the release of a damning report. Bentleigh Labor MP Rob Hudson said he was ‘‘very concerned’’ at the revelations in the report by the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate.
The council had already breached chief municipal inspector David Wolf’s main recommendation to be more open and transparent by refusing to publish the report on its website, he said. Residents have to phone the council’s service centre to obtain a copy.
Mr Hudson said the media release about the report was ‘‘a complete obfuscation’’ of what the inspector found. ‘‘That’s unprecedented,’’ he said. ‘‘Every other report goes up on the council website. To put out a media release that doesn’t properly convey what the inspector found . . . puts a spin on what the inspector said.’’
The inspectorate completed a nine-month investigation into 27 complaints of alleged conflicts of interest and misuse of position.
‘‘If you read between the lines, this report is a substantial rap over the knuckles for the councillors and the way the council operates,’’ Mr Hudson said. ‘‘Given the council has already been dismissed once I would have hoped the councillors would have learned the lessons from that.’’
Inspectorate spokeswoman Samantha Murray said the organisation could provide advice but the report’s details were ‘‘a matter for council to discuss’’. Mayor Steven Tang said the document had been made available. ‘‘While it was . . . private and confidential, council is determined it’s not kept confidential.’’
TANG’S LETTER
With reference to the article Get back to basics, Caulfield Glen Eira Leader, September 7, 2010, the inspectorate found in relation to the majority of complaints that there was no breach of the Act or no evidence to support a breach of the Act.
In fact, four of the five examples cited by the Leader were found to be in one of these two categories.
This is clearly different to a finding of insufficient evidence to prosecute. Council welcomes the recommendations.
It must also be noted, however, that the inspectorate has chosen to make recommendations as a result of this investigation rather than taking the many more punitive actions available to it.
Cr Steven Tang, Mayor, Glen Eira City Council.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 14, 2010 at 10:36 AM
Sounds like Mr. Hudson has been reading Glen Eira Debates?
September 14, 2010 at 11:00 AM
There’s a very pertinent article in today’s Age regarding ‘watchdogs’. It’s pertinent because it also goes to the powers of the Inspectorate and the fiasco of the recent Glen Eira investigation.
The Municipal Inspector’s powers only relate to the Local Government Act. Thus, some of the allegations might not have been pursued because they fell outside the purview of this act. This doesn’t mean as Tang suggests that nothing is wrong – it just means that the Inspectorate was not able to investigate the matter.
There’s also the question of how well the Inspector’s did their job. According to the Ombudsman’s report into the Municipal Investigation of Ballarat, he has no power to look into the actual investigation itself, or to comment on how well the inspectors did their work. His recommendations include broadening his powers in this domain.
Now we have this latest attempt by the State Government to further emasculate our public watchdogs. Hudson may talk about openness, but he also needs to ensure that his own party folows these precepts fully. Questions surrounding the role of the Local Government Minister in the Glen Eira affair will remain for as long as the powers of the Municipal Inspector are so circumscribed.
This is the article:
Watchdogs: new law will nobble us Paul Austin
September 14, 2010
.VICTORIA’S chief corruption fighters have confronted Premier John Brumby, warning him that government legislation now before Parliament will undermine their effectiveness and independence.
The Ombudsman’s office has joined the Auditor-General in demanding Mr Brumby change the legislation because it could make them subject to directions from ministers and oblige them to support ”outcomes determined by the minister”.
But Mr Brumby has so far refused to give ground, saying only that the watchdogs’ views will be taken into account.
In a blunt two-page letter to Mr Brumby, dated August 27 and obtained by The Age, Auditor-General Des Pearson says the Public Finance and Accountability Bill would ”undermine the role and independence of the office of Auditor-General as it provides the basis for intervention in the operations of an independent accountability official”.
”This is a threshold issue which needs to be addressed satisfactorily if the integrity of the accountability system is not to be further eroded,” Mr Pearson tells the Premier, making it clear he has been raising his concerns for more than two years.
”I believe there needs to be an explicit legislative exemption provided in the primary legislation to confirm the continuing independence of the audit function,” he writes.
Acting Ombudsman John Taylor has also written to Mr Brumby, saying he shares the Auditor-General’s concerns and warning that the bill could significantly erode the Ombudsman’s independence.
In a similar letter to Parliament’s public accounts and estimates committee on September 3, Mr Taylor says the possible uses by ministers of new powers in the bill is ”anathema” to the independence of the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman ”as they can be used a means of undermining that independence”.
”Accordingly, it is my view that significant amendments need to be made to the bill to preserve the necessary independence of independent officers,” he says in his letter.
Last night, Mr Brumby’s spokeswoman, Sarah Dolan, said: ”This bill is about strengthening public finance accountability and transparency across government. Unlike the Liberals, we respect the independence of these public offices and we will take their views into account.”
Questioned by The Age last Friday, Mr Brumby said the bill was ”designed not to diminish but to further strengthen the work of the state Auditor-General”. He said Labor supported a strong, well-funded and independent Auditor-General – ”that’s why one of the first things we did in government was to enshrine the independence of the Auditor-General in the state constitution”.
Labor had doubled or tripled the Auditor-General’s budget over its 11 years in government, Mr Brumby said.
The acting Ombudsman and Auditor-General are particularly concerned about the prospect in the bill of their offices being declared ”public bodies”, which could enable ministers to influence their operations.
The acting Ombudsman writes that the bill could require his office to ”provide information and implement and support policies that are not consistent with the Ombudsman’s independence”.
He says it could oblige the Ombudsman to be subject to directions of the minister, support ”outcomes determined by the minister”, and provide information to the minister ”regardless of whether this would reveal matters relevant to an ongoing investigation”.
The Auditor-General in his letter says the bill would make independent watchdogs subject to directions from the Minister for Finance and instructions from the Department of Treasury and Finance.
”This clearly undermines their independence,” he writes.
September 14, 2010 at 6:28 PM
“It must also be noted, however, that the inspectorate has chosen to make recommendations as a result of this investigation rather than taking the many more punitive actions available to it.”
Before he gets too carried away, Tang would do well to read what the Municipal Inspectors’ submissions were to the anti-corruption inquiry, where they make it perfectly clear that the legislation is deficient in this regard. They state – I submit that the powers for Inspectors of Municipal Administrations to investigate breaches of the Act or conduct compliance audits are appropriate however there is a need to modernise the Act in respect to specific offences and offence provisions. I also see a need to review the prescriptive components of the Act that are without consequence for non compliance or breach and either apply a sanction or remove them as a legislated requirement. …
One method to remedy this anomaly may be to amend the Act to include an additional section that places a penalty provision on any section or subsection of the Act that requires compliance yet fails to provide a sanction for non complaince.”
Click to access Local%20Government%20Investigations%20and%20Compliance%20Inspectorate%20submission%20010210.PDF