From today’s Age
Councillors, candidates face court
Jason Dowling
July 6, 2011
LOCAL councillors and council candidates across Victoria are being taken to court for not declaring conflicts of interest and not detailing who bankrolled election campaigns.
This month two councillors – including a mayor – will face conflict of interest charges in court and last month former Latrobe City councillor Lisa Price was barred from acting as a councillor for seven years and fined $9000 for failing to disclose a conflict of interest.
In handing down the decision, Magistrate Franz Holzer said ”a firm statement of deterrence and denunciation” was demanded to ensure proper local governance. ”To my mind, Ms Price’s behaviour fell below acceptable standards of conduct,” he said.
The charges related to votes Ms Price participated in at council meetings considering a municipal electoral hearing and a newsletter distributed by council in which she was found to have at minimum ”an indirect interest”.
Cheryl Wragg, of the Moe and District Residents Association, said ”the conviction of councillor Price sends a very clear message to councillors statewide that they must be aware of the law and act in accordance with it”.
Ararat Rural City council mayor Andrea Marian and Nillumbik Shire councillor Belinda Clarkson will also face charges this month regarding conflict of interest laws. A Shepparton City councillor escaped conviction but received a $500 fine from a conflict of interest charge in the past year.
Former Brimbank City councillor Tran Siu faces charges related to distributing unregistered election material and providing false and misleading information under oath.
Five unsuccessful candidates for local council have also been charged with failing to disclose campaign donations – four cases have been proven and fines of up to $250 issued.
The charges against councillors are outlined in a list of prosecution matters produced by the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate.
Municipal Association of Victoria president Bill McArthur said new conflict of interest regulations introduced this term of local council were complex.
He said there was ”quite a deal of confusion” when the conflict of interest rules were introduced ”with the simplified 79-page guide”.
Cr McArthur said councillors should follow a simple rule. ”It goes back to the old mantra, where in doubt you should declare an interest and step out of the meeting,” he said.
He said overall councillors ”are responsible, they are being transparent, they are endeavouring to comply with the regulations”.
He said councillors ”are more regulated and scrutinised than any other level of government”.
Local Government Minister Jeanette Powell said most councillors ”represent their communities with honesty, integrity and in the best interests of their community, not self-interest”.
But she added any breaches of the code of conduct for councillors ”will be investigated without fear or favour”.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Conflict of interest is really a double edged sword. It all depends on how it is used and interpreted. Obviously there is a need for legislation that attempts to put an end to corruption and paybacks especially between developers and councillors and officers. A single vote can mean millions of dollars. The right recommendation or the right inspection of a building project can also amount to millions. Currently though, there are many drawbacks to the conflict of interest legislation, especially the Winky Pop decision. In Glen Eira this has been used to superb effect to silence and sideline critics of the C60 such as Penhalluriack and to a lesser extent Forge. It’s also been used by Tang and Magee in their roles as trustees of the MRC. Through this exclusion, which by the way is entirely debatable since Winky Pop is not law, but a judge’s interpretation, Newton got his C60 amendment through. Democratic process was the biggest loser in this.
There needs to be some real reform of the legislation, with common sense the most important ingredient. When councillors are elected with the biggest majority on a particular issue, then they owe it to the community to be able to represent them on the issue and not be excluded or gagged as happened to Penhalluriack.
Recent events have also seen the reverse occuring when potential conflict of interest by Lipshutz and Tang in relation to the frisbee saga goes undeclared and councillors condone by their silence this kind of behaviour – regardless of what the Municipal Inspector stated in the report. It’s also been used in the attempt to smear certain councillors over the mulch heap affair.
Conflict of interest is important. But it must never be allowed to be used as a weapon to stifle true debate and deny the community a voice in council decisions. Nor should it ever be used by administrators to intimidate and control agendas and decisions.
July 6, 2011 at 1:50 PM
I wanna know that when Newton gets chucked out and then lands a cushy job with the mrc if that’s conflict of interest.
July 6, 2011 at 4:58 PM
Well Staikos happily accepted a lifetime appointment on the Caulfield Race Course trust when he resigned as a Councillor. While he was filled one of the Council Trust positions he fully supported the MRC’s motions in deference to the Councils position. Someone must have liked him. I suppose if Newton took a job with them no law broken. Just not right.
July 6, 2011 at 5:40 PM
How about Tang working for the same law firm used by council?
July 6, 2011 at 7:11 PM
The legislation is a total mess. If it’s not clear then it’s poorly worded. It lends itself to manipulation and gerrymandering. Further, the whole focus is on councillors. Seems that the bean counters are being left off the hook. This desperately needs addressing.
July 6, 2011 at 10:09 PM
If Mr Newton were to leave the employment of Glen Eira and takes a position with with the MRC it would be a huge loss for our City and an enormous gain for Racing Victoria.
July 6, 2011 at 10:33 PM
Such “losses” we can cheerfully bear.
July 7, 2011 at 12:26 AM
To me I would expect our representatives who are supposed to go to the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees meetings (they are only twice a year for less than two hours) to take with them instructions from the Glen Eira Council to express the wishes of the residents and them alone. When it comes to these three delegates voting on Caulfield Racecourse Trustees or Melbourne Racing Club MATTERS THEN THEY SHOULD REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE 130,000 GLEN EIRA RESIDENTS and no one else. It would seem that Stephen Tang finds all kinds of reasons not to be there and it took a whole year of vacancies for Helen Whiteside’s replacement to be found! Are we not handing over control by making sure our seats remain vacant and we have only had one representative for about a year actually present at the Caulfield Racecourse Trustree meetings.We are after all the people who elect them to represent us in all the duties in which they are entrusted. They are paid by the residents of Glen Eira not anyone else I hope!!!!
When comparing the Glen Eira setup to the league or other sports organisation then the SWANS REPRESENTATIVE WOULD NOT BE INTERESTED IN FAVOURING THE LEAGUE OF HIS CLUB AND ONLY REPRESENTS HIS/HER CLUB WITHIN THE UMBRELLA ORGANISATION and not the other way as is the case in Glen Eira.
July 7, 2011 at 4:50 PM
No shortage of conflict of interest worries with this council. Latest is the Hawthorn Rd heritage listed property. Council has ignored 6 heritage advisors expert opinions and gambled on a panel report. My worry is would they do this for your ordinary citizen or does your name have to be Esakoff and you and your husband have got some interest in the outcome of this.
July 7, 2011 at 7:18 PM
No conflict of interest in Hawthorn Road heritage property – Esakoff declared three conflicts of interest (joint ownsership with husband on one property, husbands interest in other two). However, while not a conflict of interest, the manipulations and arguments that Lipshutz, Tang and Hyams have done/presented/expressed at Council meetings have been staggering. This is a blatant spending of ratepayers money to enable wealthy developers to become even more wealthy.
July 7, 2011 at 10:31 PM
There mightn’t be a legal conflict of interest, but there sure as hell is a moral one – especially when you unnecessarily spend ratepayers funds to try and get your mate off the hook – and this after the department has put a kyber on your original plot to remove heritage listing from all three properties. This stinks to high heaven.