Legislative Council, Wednesday 27 May 2026
Ms FORREST (Murchison) – Thanks, Mr President. So people don’t get too stressed, I’ve got to speak for a little bit, then adjourn the debate, as requested by the Leader. I know members have lots on as well. I rise to speak on some much‑needed reform to the Local Government Act 1993. I acknowledge there will be further debate on the matter, particularly around councillor numbers. I should acknowledge from the outset that I do not come to this debate with a local government background. Some may see that as a limitation; I suggest it can be an advantage. Those deeply embedded in the sector can sometimes find it harder to step back and ask: does this arrangement still serve the community well? Approaching these questions from this place – and broadly, the reforms before us look reasonable and respond to a number of pressing matters related to local government.
I am sure members know that the Murchison electorate spans five north-west councils: Circular Head; Waratah-Wynyard; a fairly significant part of Burnie City Council, ever-increasing; West Coast Council; and, of course, the beautiful King Island. I note that councils across the region engaged constructively with the consultation process. Their broad support is based on the detail, and the councils I represent have broadly endorsed the overall direction that’s being taken. Some of them have raised concerns about the next tranche, but we are not dealing with that now and we will come to that at a later stage.
The serious misconduct provisions are, I think, a quite significant element of this bill. The power to ban a person from standing for election by an administrative tribunal as opposed to a court did make me stop and think: is this what we should be doing? Obviously, it is only following a finding of serious misconduct. It is a strong power, and I will be listening to any concerns raised by the members in this place as well about the upper limits of the banning period. I know that the member for Montgomery spoke about if a serious misconduct occurs, like toward the end of a four-year term, then effectively it’s three terms before you can stand again. So, I know this is something that has been consoled and there are arguments for and against it, but I think it is an extraordinarily long period of time for the people to not be able to elect someone who they may have deliberately supported for a particular reason. You don’t get elected on only two votes normally. We know that there have been occasions where elected members have had quite a small number of votes and got elected. We’ve seen that in this place too, I might add, by population. But we don’t then say, ‘Well, you’re an illegitimate member,’ do we? The community and the people always get it right. Sometimes they don’t quite know how that member is going to perform when they’re there, and the same can be said for people in this place, and the big house up in Canberra. We do see – and we have seen – some pretty appalling behaviour from time to time. So, let’s not point any fingers more firmly at one level of government without looking carefully at ourselves as well.
I will listen to other members’ contributions on this because I think it is a serious matter we’re dealing with. It is serious misconduct we’re talking about, but I do think there is obviously a need to do something otherwise we wouldn’t be here. I think from the extensive briefings, and we certainly explored this matter quite extensively, and I think I would like the minister, hopefully when he does his reply, to be able to fully reiterate some of the matters that were raised during the briefings as justification for that – if they want my support for it. Because I am a bit concerned about the scope of it, the powers here that we’re giving TASCAT and the implications that could have.
So, that said, the power itself is clearly necessary. It’s the extent of the power that I’m talking about. It’s no secret to anybody that some of the matters that these provisions in the bill respond to are matters that there’s been a real lack of real options for the local government office, for the minister or anybody, and I don’t think the minister should be inserting themselves directly into this matter either, for that matter. But there has been some very serious issues, and I’m personally aware of some of these matters because they occurred in councils I represent, and members of those councils would come to me and they’d ring me and say, ‘This is happening, what can we do?’ You contact the local government office, contact the LGAT, talk to the minister, and there we are still dealing with the same problem. I’m asking myself, ‘Well how can this be?’ The other members of the local council are asking, ‘How can this be?’ And the person who’s perpetrated the misconduct just sits there and smiles, or to continue as a behaviour or whatever it is that is the problem.
There is no denying there’s a problem we need to fix, I don’t think that’s the question. The question is, is this the right mechanism to fix it, and if it is, I think we need a little bit more detail about the size of the stick, not the stick itself. I hope that the minister’s advisers will be able to put something together, either for the minister or for the leader, if she’s doing the wrap‑up with the minister still unwell. These serious matters do demand a meaningful consequence, they really do. The community expect it, the local government, members of that particular council expect it, I expect it, but we need to be clear about what we’re doing and how we’re doing it.
I think some of these serious misconduct issues I’m surprised didn’t disqualify someone when, particularly when they’ve undertaken an offence such as a certain councillor in Waratah Wynward who exposed himself to a woman and child on a beach, one would think that would be enough. So, these sorts of behaviours do demand a meaningful consequence and community trust in local government depends, I believe, on knowing that serious misconduct is taken seriously and dealt with. My community saw so much of this go on and on and no apparent resolution. It was like the government, the parliament, was condoning that behaviour because nothing was happening from their perspective, and that’s not okay either.
I also note that TASCAT is not a court, but it does have significant powers, particularly with those provided through this bill. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I’m just asking the question about the size of the stick. In my mind, too, and I did raise this in the briefings, that one would think that some matters of serious misconduct would constitute an offence that would be dealt with through the judicial system.
I will seek to adjourn the debate after I’ve dealt with this particular matter about serious misconduct before I go to other matters. But, when we go back to the TASCAT question – and I haven’t looked in the budget papers yet on this particular matter, I’ve been looking at other things – my question is: is additional resourcing being provided to TASCAT, as some of this work and the investigations that may be required, knowing what’s happened in the past, may be quite complex and quite lengthy and tie up resources of TASCAT?
We’re seeing cuts everywhere. We’re seeing people who are expected to make significant savings in a whole range of areas, but here we are, giving another power, another requirement to TASCAT. What is the budget allocation for this – the specific amount of money that’s been provided to TASCAT to do the job? Don’t just tell me it’s absorbed into the whole TASCAT budget. That’s not good enough.
Ms Webb – Pretty sure that was the answer when I asked.
Ms FORREST – Well, if that’s the answer, that’s not good enough. We need to know what additional provisions have been made for this. Because, assuming if this was passed and went into law, ideally before the next council election, as I understand it, then we need to know because there will be this financial year. We need to know.
I will leave it that. I’ve got a range of other matters that I want to speak to and I appreciate the opportunity to have two cracks, particularly as I wasn’t fully prepared for this. I will, at this point, move –
That the debate be adjourned.
Legislative Council, Thursday 28 May 2026
Ms FORREST (Murchison) – Mr President, I commenced my contribution last evening before we adjourned. I won’t be speaking for a long time on this, I think there’s going to be a lot of debate around the Chamber on this, particularly in the committee stage. I intend to put the key matters that I’d like to raise in my contribution on the record and I look forward to listening to other members’ contributions as well. I was speaking about the serious misconduct matter and the provisioning of TASCAT, and I hope the Leader, who’s now in charge of the bill, can provide some information in her reply to the debate –
Ms Rattray – Through you, Mr President: I was listening last evening.
Ms FORREST – I’m sure you were. To move on from that point, I do want to note that I welcome the provisions to enable remote location access to council meetings, et cetera. This is particularly an issue for our remote communities, as the leader herself would know. King and Flinders Island create challenges for elected members who need to leave the island for health treatment. I know there are provisions to seek leave and be granted leave and that sort of thing, but there’s one well‑publicised incident with a local government member on King Island whose husband was actually dying and was receiving care on mainland Tasmania – because it is the mainland to them, on our beautiful islands. Under the stress of that situation, she failed three times to seek leave and was thus automatically removed from council.
Now, I think most of us would recognise that as being an inappropriate response, but that was the rule. Whether she could have attended online at some of those meetings that were being held is another matter, but this provision makes it possible. I think we do need to move into the digital world at some stage. I do welcome that, but I think it has – sadly, my electoral provides many very real examples of the need for this legislation, but that is one. I absolutely welcome that. I also commend the provisions to facilitate the alternate voting procedures. We know now that local government voting is compulsory. We want everyone to be able to access their democratic right and fully participate in that democratic process. It’s absolutely essential for a robust and strong democracy and an inclusive society. Again, I welcome those changes. I think it’s really, really important and I’m glad to see them there.
I also support the mandatory training and development requirements for councillors. They’re taking on a really important role as we are, in fact, ourselves. They have a lot of legal requirements placed upon them when they’re acting as a planning authority. Particularly, they do need to understand the legislation in which they’re applying. Anyone coming into local government or this place, for that matter, I believe, does need a level of learning and development fit for the purpose of their role. I do remember 21‑plus years ago that our induction to this place – the member for McIntyre would have been almost exactly the same, I imagine – consisted of: there’s your office, there’s your seat in the Chamber, there’s the library, and there’s the toilet. That’s it.
Ms Rattray – Oh, and don’t forget the bistro.
Ms FORREST – I didn’t know where the bistro was. The rabbit warren that this place can be when you first arrive – I’m sure the new member for Huon’s found that a little bit, finding your way around thinking, is this the right corridor? They look a bit the same. It’s a bit of a challenge. That’s not actually learning, but it’s finding your way around. Well, it is learning how to find your way around, I guess. To understand how we do things, the procedural matters and what it actually means to adequately and completely fulfil your role is just as important to us as it is for local government members. I do fear in some respects that what we’re doing with this legislation is applying a different standard to local government elected members than we are to ourselves. There’s nothing to stop us taking on professional development.
The other point I will raise at this point is that under the – I’m getting a bit sick of banging on about this, but I will: the workplace culture oversight committee in overseeing the delivery of the recommendations made through the Bolt Report: Motion for Respect ‑ Report into Workplace Culture in the Tasmanian Ministerial and Parliamentary Services did talk about the need for this. We know there’s been a huge amount of work done by our clerks in terms of developing training programs and things like that for newly‑elected members, but also, I’m quite sure, for their own staff. There is no money in the Budget for it. There’s no money for the independent Complaints Commissioner. How well has it been displayed in the last 24 hours how much that’s needed, and there is not enough money in the Budget for it? Is this government serious about resourcing these requirements?
We’re now putting in requirements for local government. They have to have mandatory learning and professional development – we know that that should be the same here and it was recommended in the Bolt report – but there’s no money for it. How are the clerks supposed to do the job we’ve asked them to do, we all agreed in this Chamber for them to do, without the resourcing to do it? Does this government actually care about the people who work in this place? That’s not a rhetorical question, it’s a real question, and maybe the leader might like to address her mind to it. It’s a disgrace. I assume that the mandatory learning and development requirements for this bill will fall to local government itself. Let’s hope that they’re adequately resourced to do it, because this parliament certainly isn’t.
Ms O’Connor – They’re not. They’re not.
Ms FORREST – Exactly. We impose these requirements and then don’t resource them to do it. It’s all about priorities. All about priorities and I’m so disappointed in this government’s priorities at the moment. I could write a book on it.
Mr Hiscutt – Maybe one day you should.
Ms FORREST – What was it, the stories of a – what was it, that book? I can’t remember the title.
Mr PRESIDENT – Confessions of a Ferret Salesman.
Ms FORREST – The member for Mersey knows about ferrets. The Henley‑on‑Mersey, they have Ferret races, don’t they?
Mr Gaffney – They did have pig races, but that was a bit bold.
Ms FORREST – But ferrets were allowed to race. Back on track, I’m sorry for that mild diversion. I think it’s important to recognise what we do in this place has real‑world consequences. I do note the role of elected members in local government has evolved well beyond rates, roads and rubbish. That was the old three that we used to always talk about. The member for Montgomery spoke about that. There’s a lot of requirements on elected members in local government around governance, around financial oversight, around strategic planning, around asset management. There’s higher expectations related to community engagement in a much more connected world, with the use of social media and operating in a digital world generally. This does mean we need to review what professional development elected members may need, as we also need.
I think there is a lot more pressure, and the Auditor‑General has reported regularly on matters in local government, including things like asset management and things like that. If we want our elected members to actually be able to fulfil their roles and responsibilities, of course we should be assisting them to do that task; but let’s make sure it’s resourced to do so. I also acknowledge, I’m pretty sure the member for Montgomery commented that local government is the level of government closest to the community. The responsibilities are broad and getting more and more sophisticated. I think we need to acknowledge that.
It would be unreasonable to expect councillors to shoulder these responsibility without any structured preparation and ongoing development, but we need to resource it to make sure that it can be delivered. Making it mandatory does take it to another level. When it’s mandatory, it’s mandatory. People can undertake training and just turn up but not take it in: you can’t control that. As I’ve stated, we could also argue this principle should apply to elected members at all levels of government, including everyone in this Chamber and the other place, but to make it mandatory does set a different level of expectation.
We ask communities to trust us with significant decisions. In my view, ongoing professional development is simply part of meeting that obligation. We shouldn’t overlook the fact that it’s also an obligation of many professions. You won’t be re‑registered as a nurse, medical professional, probably the same in teaching, without doing the required hours of continuous professional development. Engineers are the same. This is not some out‑of‑the‑box, weird suggestion. It’s part of doing your job well.
On the proposed reduction in the number of elected representatives across certain councils, I will listen carefully to the concerns raised by other members here because I know this has been a matter of great public interest. Those concerns do deserve genuine engagement. I also believe this discussion decision can’t be divorced from the remuneration matter either.
But I want to be clear about one thing. Reducing council numbers must not be used as a substitute for the hardest structural question of council numbers, not numbers of members but number of councils. If there are genuine efficiency arguments for rationalising representation, they should remain on their merits, not deployed to avoid the more significant and more politically difficult question of amalgamations or redistribution of boundaries.
I’ve spoken to the minister about this. This almost needs to be taken away from government. I’ve said this in the past, in this place, the ideal person or body to do this is the electoral commission. Let them have a look at the boundaries, let them consider the communities interests, the connectivity between regions. That’s as well as the numbers. We don’t have the same requirements of one vote, one value as we do for a state parliament, obviously, that do impact on the setting of these boundaries. We need to have a proper look at this.
If this is a substitute or a diversion from taking on that politically difficult thing, that’s a disgrace too. If that’s what it’s about, and I’m not sure what it’s actually about. That maybe it, but we would be far better to ask the electoral commission and fund them to do some work on this. At least take it all out of the hands of elected members at any level. They’re an independent organisation who do redistribution assessments all the time. They run elections and all sorts of other things, but that is something they know how to do.
I note there’ll be further legislative work ahead on local government, including electoral reform, and will have more to say about those measures when they come to this place. I do note there is likely to be considerable further debate on this bill, but also the future one no doubt. I know it will have quite extensive debate in the committee stage, I imagine, on the matter of numbers on each council.
Overall, my intent is to support this bill. My electorate has well demonstrated the need for many of these changes. Certainly, into the committee stage, and I will listen to all contributions both on the second reading and in the committee stage. In broad terms, this bill has been developed with the local government sector, refined through further consultation. There have been genuine concerns raised about the extent of the consultation on the matter of councillor numbers, and this does need further consideration.
I note that some of the feedback, especially from the very small population councils, that the initial intention of reducing some councils to five elected members was not supported, and I also wouldn’t have supported that. I know the member for Montgomery raised the question about the process for which some a small number of councils could reduce the numbers to five. I agree entirely with this position that five is two small. It has now been made voluntary, but we will no doubt unpack that process a bit more in the committee stage.
I’m not sure this should ever be the case, though, that five elected members can form an elected body, due to the case that a small quorum can make pretty significant decisions for their entire council area. Even if it’s a small area like King Island, it’s still three people making major decisions for that island, for example. The same could occur with West Coast, a much larger area with a number of communities. There are many; Rosebery, Queenstown, Zeehan, Strahan, Tullah, Waratah, Trial Harbour, Bramble Cove, I could go on. Three members could make a decision –
Ms Armitage – The same could occur in Launceston.
Ms FORREST – I don’t think Launceston could drop back though.
Ms Armitage – Well, no. If you only have a quorum, if you have nine, a quorum would be five.
Ms FORREST – Oh, to five, yeah.
Ms Armitage – Which means you could have three people making those important decisions.
Ms FORREST – There were only five members.
Ms Armitage – I’m saying if you have nine and some don’t turn up you have a quorum with five.
Ms FORREST – Oh right, yes.
Ms Armitage – You would still have three people making those decisions in large councils.
Ms FORREST – It’s a matter of how they operate.
Ms Armitage – Still could happen.
Ms FORREST – Anyway, you can raise that in your contribution, Member for Launceston. I’m sure you will. We will hear all about the Launceston Council with very vast experience in the field there, sitting with you.
Ms Armitage – I have three councils in my electorate. Two and a half.
Ms FORREST – The other matter on that is not only the size of the quorum, but also the challenges of dealing with conflicts of interest. If a councillor has to absent themselves from a particular debate as in communities like King Island, everyone’s involved in everything. It’s such a common thing that one or two of their elected members will be conflicted on a development application being assessed or other matters that come before council. Those things do need to be considered.
Diversity of thinking is also just as important, and perhaps some would say more important, than other diversity, including gender diversity, members of the culturally and linguistically diverse community, those living with disability, et cetera. Diversity of thinking is also critical for effective and inclusive decision making. The smaller the number, the more likely it is to have people who look just like them sitting around the table.
From feedback I have received, the bill is presented is broadly supported by councillors across my electorate. The general feedback I have from my community is also supportive as it’s important to hear from the members of the community who are most directly impacted by the decisions of their local council. It potentially has the opportunity to lift standards of conduct, improve accountability, and strengthen community confidence in local government, provided the resourcing is put into it if that’s necessary.
At this stage it’s my intention to move – I’m not going move that the debate stand adjourned, I did that yesterday. I’m going sit down, but I will support the bill into the committee stage and look forward to other members’ contributions.