We investigate complaints and conduct own-motion investigations. An 'own motion' investigation is where we investigate a matter without a formal complaint but due to information re have received from other methods, such as media reports.
Investigation outcomes can be useful to help councillors and council staff avoid breaches and committing offences under the Local Government Act.
For council general elections and by-elections, we investigate all complaints that potentially expose a breach of the electoral laws, to protect the integrity of the elections.
The investigations mentioned below were initiated by the public, council staff or councillors, which are a key source of vital information for investigators.
For more information on how to submit information or make a complaint, visit our Make a complaint page.
Conviction over interest returns
Councillors are required to submit updated interest returns twice a year, which is an important document for recording their interests in their municipality and identifying any possible conflicts of interest that may arise in their decision making. Non-disclosure can attract significant penalties.
In 2017 the Inspectorate charged former Wyndham City councillor Intaj Khan for failing to file ordinary interests returns and for the non-disclosure of various interests on those returns between February 2016 and February 2017. Mr Khan was charged with three counts of failing to disclose companies in which he held an office position during the return period; three counts of failing to disclose companies in which he held a financial interest; two counts of failing to submit ordinary returns; and one count of failing to disclose property holdings, in breach of the interest provisions of the 1989 Act.
Mr Khan pleaded guilty to eight charges. On 16 July 2018, Mr Khan was convicted in the Sunshine Magistrates Court on the eight charges and was fined $26,000 – $8,000 related to the two counts of failing to submit an ordinary return, and $18,000 for the remaining six charges. Mr Khan was also ordered to pay $15,000 in legal costs. While he subsequently appealed the matter in the County Court, Mr Khan dropped the appeal partway through proceedings and the decision stood.
Magistrate Therese McCarthy said Mr Khan had received training from Wyndham Council and a previous warning from the Inspectorate over a failure to submit an interests return, which she considered was an essential tool for good governance.
The conviction and penalty imposed against Mr Khan illustrates the importance of councillors complying with the personal interest provisions of the Local Government Act for the promotion of transparency and integrity.
Delayed personal interests’ declaration
In 2020–21, a councillor was warned after submitting their primary personal interests return two and a half years late. This was a breach of section 81(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1989, which requires a councillor to submit a primary interest return within 30 days of election day or 7 days of making the oath or affirmation of the office of a councillor. They are then required to submit ordinary interest returns twice a year.
The councillor explained they were elected via countback and did not have the same induction process as other councillors. As their ordinary interest return was due shortly after they were elected, they thought this was the only interest return they needed to complete.
Our request to the council for provision of all councillors’ primary interest returns prompted the governance staff to have this councillor submit a primary interest return. The councillor was very apologetic and said they would be more diligent going forward.
Undeclared gift to councillor
We received a complaint that a local developer had commissioned an artist to paint a portrait of a councillor. The allegation was that the portrait was a gift to the councillor and was presented to him at a time when the developer had made an application for a major development. The gift was never recorded on the gift register by the councillor.
We investigated and found the developer did commission the artist and the written agreement between the two parties stated that the portrait of the councillor would be paid for by the developer but would be given to the council. The invoice for about $7,500 was sent to the developer’s development company. In August 2019, the portrait was unveiled by the mayor at the ‘Citizen of the Year’ awards and presented to the councillor. The developer made a planning application to council in late 2019.
We interviewed the councillor under caution. He said that he was not aware of the portrait before the award ceremony. The councillor advised that he did not want to accept it and asked the portrait to be taken to the local history centre. He did not take possession of the portrait.
We also interviewed the mayor at the time who told us that the portrait was a gift to the council, not the councillor. We confirmed that the portrait had been taken to the history centre shortly after the awards ceremony. The developer also denied that the portrait was a gift to the councillor.
We accepted that the donation of the portrait was made to the council and therefore it was not mandatory that the gift register was updated in accordance with s. 81 (7) (e) of the Act. However, a donation by a philanthropist to council and not an individual was not covered by the Act or by any council policy. We recommended that council’s ‘Receiving Gifts, Benefits and Hospitality Policy (2020)’ should be updated to include the gifts to council. Council updated its policy in August 2020.
We were satisfied with council’s response and closed the matter. We found no breach of the Act.
Unlawful nomination in election
We received a complaint during the 2016 Melbourne City Council elections about a possible unlawful nomination by a candidate. The person who made the complaint said the candidate had listed the Kensington address of a fellow candidate on her nomination form but did not live in the area.
We quickly investigated the complaint and charged Richard Foster, who was a councillor at the time, with aiding or abetting the unlawful nomination. Mr Foster had counselled the candidate, Brooke Wandin, a Healesville resident, to write his address on her enrolment application. Ms Wandin cooperated with the Inspectorate, admitted to the unlawful nomination and was granted a diversion with no criminal conviction recorded or fine.
At a hearing in April 2018, the court recognised the seriousness of Mr Foster’s offence and he was placed on a 12 month good behaviour bond. Prosecution legal costs were awarded in an amount to be determined.
While no convictions were recorded, public interest in the hearings and ongoing media coverage helped reinforce the serious nature of electoral offending. The unlawful nomination acts as a warning to all future candidates.
Failing to submit a campaign donation return
Nearly 15 per cent of candidates failed to submit a campaign donation return after the 2016 general council elections. After a campaign to educate and give warnings to anyone who failed to submit a return, 15 candidates were prosecuted for not complying.
Greater Dandenong City Council candidate Ha Dang Quach was prosecuted in March 2018 for failing to submit a campaign donation return by the deadline. The court took into account Mr Quach’s prior convictions in making a determination. Mr Quach was convicted and ordered to pay an $800 fine and $1750 towards prosecution legal costs.
Transparent disclosure of campaign funding is important to maintain the integrity of elections and if candidates are elected, the future decision making of councils.
Misuse of a corporate credit card
We received a complaint that the CEO of Central Goldfields Shire Council was misusing the corporate credit card.
We asked the council to supply supporting documents and statements, which lead to a full audit of council governance issues.
We laid charges against the CEO and in December 2018. He appeared in Maryborough Magistrates Court on 5 charges related to gaining financial advantage by deception.
The court convicted the now-former CEO on all charges. He was ordered to pay $26,000 in fines and $10,000 towards legal costs.
Findings from the council investigation were published in a report in August 2017.
Releasing confidential information and serious misconduct
Public knowledge of confidential council matters is a frequent complaint to the Inspectorate, which raises issues of councillor misconduct or serious offences.
We received a complaint about releases of confidential information by East Gippsland Shire councillor Ben Buckley. We applied for a Councillor Conduct Panel to make 3 findings of serious misconduct against Cr Buckley. Two of the three allegations were found proven by the panel in February 2017 and Cr Buckley was suspended from office for 4 months.
Cr Buckley appealed the suspension at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). VCAT vice-president Judge Frances Millane upheld the 4 month suspension recommended by the panel.
Councillors misusing their position
‘All decisions involving the CEO need to be made by the full council. They should not be delegated. All councillors need to be made aware of the specifics of the CEO contract.'
During our regular investigations, we found that 3 contracts were not properly conducted, for the same CEO, at 2 different councils.
Contracts were negotiated by the councillors to give favourable terms to the CEO. The contract also left the employer exposed to financial risk due to costly exit clauses.
The same CEO was investigated when employed at another council. The investigation led to the prosecution of 2 mayors and a councillor for misuse of position by exceeding their authority in agreeing to contract arrangements during the CEO appointment process.
Moonee Valley councillors Paul Giuliano and Shirley Cornish plead guilty to misuse of position at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court regarding a decision they made about council business, without receiving a resolution of council.
Cr Giuliano was placed on a 12 month good behaviour bond without conviction and ordered to pay $6000 in fines and court costs. Cr Cornish pleaded guilty and received a 12 month good behaviour bond and ordered to pay $8000 in fines.
The case against the mayor at the second council was determined to have reached the prosecution threshold but was withdrawn before the case went to court.
All 3 investigations show that it’s important for the CEO to make decisions with the full council. It also demonstrates transparency in council decisions to ratepayers.
'What must be remembered is there is enormous variability in the level of skills of councillors, particularly in relation to performance monitoring the CEO.’ Metropolitan council mayor
Updated