Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Bill 2026

Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Second Reading Debate
9 September, 2026

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):

I rise to speak briefly on the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Bill 2026. There are two elements, broadly, to this bill. The first deals with governance and integrity reforms for local government. The second creates a Local Government Fair Jobs Code Regulator and the regulatory framework to enforce it. Frankly, we are profoundly ambivalent about this bill.

We have concerns about the tepid implementation of the recommendation from IBAC’s Operation Sandon investigation into alleged corruption in local government planning and property development decisions. We feel these amendments do not address many of the real issues that were identified by IBAC.

If we are really to tackle corruption in local government, we need to prioritise donation reform. We need a cap on donations. Certain groups such as property developers should be banned from making donations, given the high risk of corruption that comes with a large donation with donors from certain interests.

I think we have seen that play out in a number of our largest councils, where many councils have been forced to abstain from critical planning decisions because they have been compromised through those donations. These reforms have also already been introduced into other jurisdictions, such as New South Wales.

We also need real-time disclosure of donations. I believe Dr Mansfield will be elaborating on these concerns, and when we see them we will I think almost undoubtedly be supporting the Greens amendments.

We also have concerns about the development of the fair jobs code and the creation of a new body to regulate it. There is no question that we all seek job security and decent working conditions for all workers, no less council workers, and we absolutely understand the desire of the Australian Services Union and its members to maximise secure employment in the local government sector. It goes without saying. But as it stands in this regulation, the package is a black box. Once again we are seeing the government relying on regulations rather than legislation and being asked to vote on legislation that has insufficient details. It is lazy governing.

We saw it repeatedly with the planning legislation, which directly impacted local government, and it was, ‘Trust us. You’ll see the rest later.’ My God, wasn’t that a terrible outcome for local government, and now we are seeing it here. We were asked to vote on that bill with the caveat that details would be sorted out in the regs, but stuff that came out of, for example, the inquiry into planning amendments has simply been ignored by the government, and in fact the government has declined to even respond to the findings from that inquiry.

I am very cognisant that in driving those reforms in the context of planning the government showed scant regard for local government’s input or their responsibilities in that area, and similarly, we are aware that there has been very limited consultation with local governments on this bill and particularly the jobs code and its implementation.

That said, I understand that Minister Richardson is new to the job. He has only been there for four weeks, and he has inherited a bill and I guess a concept that has already been through two sets of ministerial hands, with limited consultation with local government.

As we know from the parliamentary inquiry into government consultation, a briefing is not a consultation and an indication of future regulation is not an acceptable way to do reform. I would also like to note, though, that I am very appreciative of the time that Minister Richardson has spent personally trying to work through these issues over the last couple of weeks. I would, however, say that ideally if you are going to reform something, put it in legislation and let the whole thing be subject to scrutiny and review.

I must admit, whilst I might have had a limited civics background, I thought that is pretty much why we are here: to review legislation. But I might be naive. We understand from discussions with Minister Richardson that there will now be an extensive consultation with multiple stakeholders, and that is very welcome. But there remain a range of concerns by local government as to what the jobs code will be and how it might work.

Councils have been subject to successive governments effectively starving their funding through rate capping and bad policies, and at the same time increasing their responsibilities, including some of the more onerous ones like, for example, being the debt collector on the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. Local government workers have borne the brunt of that fiscal starvation.

If you look at what they have achieved through improvements in wages and conditions, it has been very, very poor. That is no criticism of the ASU. There are good folks there. It is simply the capacity of council to pay given those constraints.

Earlier when this bill or this package was floated, and that is close to two years ago I think now that it has been bounced from one part of government to the other, there was discussion about whether the code would have specific cost imposts and whether this would provide an opportunity to reopen the question of the application of rate capping.

If there were to be a significant cost impost associated with a job code change, there would be the capacity to offset that through amendments to the rate cap. However, that seems to have largely fallen off the table, and I guess there is a sense of confusion as to what and how this will actually work in real life, particularly if there are cost imposts associated with the changes.

We note that local government requested an exposure draft from the government and that that was not forthcoming. They then requested to see a sort of set of principles that could sit behind the code, and this was not forthcoming. Again, these all predate Minister Richardson’s involvement here. So now we come to a certain point where the legislation is before us.

We understand that the ASU do not necessarily share the same concerns as the Municipal Association of Victoria and the local councils. That is perfectly normal and understandable, but clearly it does provide a certain tension for those in this place who have close relationships in both camps.

At this point I will finish my contribution. There are, however, a number of questions that strike to the purpose and the application of the code, and we will be pursuing those vigorously in the committee of the whole. At this point we will reserve our position until the committee stage and see what the government puts forward before we determine where we stand on this bill.

[Council divided on Bill]

[Bill passed 22 votes to 15]