Frequently asked questions

A discretionary fund is a pool of money that each Mayor and councillor have at their disposal, to distribute to individuals or community organisations as they see fit.

The use of ratepayer funds for councillor discretionary funds varies across local governments. Some do not provide councillors with any discretionary funds, whereas some provide councillors with a very large discretionary fund. Not all local governments clearly publish the allocation and/or expenditure of councillor discretionary funds meaning the community does not have strong visibility over how their ratepayer funds are being used. It is currently also possible for councillors to use their discretionary funds heavily in the lead-up to an election, thus raising their public profile, providing a clear advantage over other candidates.

To improve transparency and accountability, it is proposed to cap the allocation of councillor discretionary funds to 0.25% of general rates. Councillors will also be prohibited from rolling funds over each financial year and from expending discretionary funds from 1 January in election years. Discretionary funds expenditure must be published within 7 days of being incurred.

The Government committed that it would review the Councillor complaints framework for Brisbane City Council within 6 months from the commencement of the new complaints’ framework for other local governments (3 December 2018). The Government has exceeded that promise, with the review being completed by the end of 2018.

The Government is committed to consistency between all local governments where it makes sense. This is a clear situation where there should be consistency. Having the Office of the Independent Assessor investigate complaints about Brisbane City Councillors will ensure the process is independent.

The Government is aware of the workload currently being experienced by the Office of the Independent Assessor and is closely monitoring that workload to ensure that the new complaints framework is streamlined and efficient.

The Right to Information Act currently provides that Brisbane City Council Establishment and Coordination Committee’s (E&C) information is exempt information for a period of 10 years. When the RTI Act was first enacted in 2009, it did not include Section 4A. Sections 4A and 4B were inserted into the RTI Act by the City of Brisbane Act 2010 in June 2010.

With the publication of the CCC’s Operation Belcarra and Operation Windage reports, it has become clear that the local government legislation does not go far enough in promoting and mandating transparency. For consistency, Increased transparency should apply to all local governments, including Brisbane City Council.

For this reason, it is also proposed to mandate that all Council committees must keep minutes. For Brisbane City Council, this will mean that its Establishment and Coordination Committee must now keep minutes.

Councillors need relevant information to inform their decisions and ensure they are in the public interest. The proposed changes would improve Councillors’ access to Council information by requiring Councillors obtain information requested from Council officers within five days of the request and permitting Brisbane City Councillors to obtain information that does not specifically relate to their wards.

Removing the current responsibility of the Mayor to prepare and present a budget for consideration by Council would ensure that the budget is developed by all Councillors and represents the interest of the entire Local Government area.

The Mayor’s power to direct senior executive staff of the Council as well as the Chief Executive Officer would be removed to better reflect the operational structure and reporting lines of Councils and reduce the risks of corruption.

In addition, the requirement for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor (or Committee Chairperson) and Chief Executive Officer to be responsible for the appointment of senior executive staff will be removed so that the Chief Executive Officer is responsible to provide clarity over reporting lines.

The proposed changes to the responsibilities of Mayors would not apply to Lord Mayor of Brisbane City Council.

Should Parliament pass the amendments, it is expected the changes would be made in mid-2019.

Councils must adopt their budgets by 1 August 2019, so it is possible a Council will need to prepare a budget at short notice in place of a budget prepared by the Mayor. If more time is needed, a Council may apply for an extension of time to adopt their budget.

Candidates for Mayor or Councillor do not currently have to disclose any of their interests until they are elected. The Government considers it important that voters know if a candidate has any political affiliations or potential conflicts of interest that would impact on their responsibilities if elected, for example, if a candidate has a contract with Council or has a development application under consideration by Council.

Requiring all candidates to maintain registers of interest would also bring greater equity between candidates from outside Council and those who already hold office and are required to maintain public registers of interest.

Currently, training for potential candidates for Local Government elections has been provided on a voluntary basis. However, the Government considers that all candidates, including current office holders, should be fully informed of their obligations as candidates and Councillors or Mayors before they nominate.

The Government proposes that successful completion of approved training would be a requirement for nominating as a candidate for Local Government elections. The training would help ensure the transparency and integrity of elections and Councils by advising potential candidates of their commitments should they nominate and if they are successful in the election.

The Government proposes to reduce the need for by-elections to fill Councillor vacancies to minimise Councils’ costs associated with by-elections and reduce the time with vacancies on Council. Instead of by-elections, Councillor vacancies at undivided Councils or divided Councils with multi-Councillor divisions would be filled by appointing the runner-up at the previous election. However, for Councils with single Councillors division, a by-election will still be required to avoid appointing a runner-up who may not have received the second highest number of votes after preferences have been redistributed.

The proposed timeframes for applications for postal votes align with the State election processes for postal voting. Extending the deadline for applications for a postal vote to 10 business days before polling day would also ensure sufficient time is available for the voter to be sent their ballot paper before the election, given current Australia Post-delivery arrangements.

The proposed arrangements also allow postal ballots to be counted prior to the election day to enable quicker determination of the election result.

An information paper, Local Government Reforms – Key amendments currently under consideration (PDF, 357KB) is available for download.

The Bill is currently being prepared and informed by feedback from key stakeholders. Once prepared, the Bill will be tabled in Parliament and then referred to a Parliamentary Committee. It is through this process that the Bill is made public for community consideration and comment.

The Department has been engaging with stakeholders including community groups, Councils, Councillors, Regional Organisations of Councils and Council Chief Executive Officers across the State for about a year. The Local Government Association of Queensland has also been consulted. The release of the Information Paper, Local Government Reforms – Key amendments currently under consideration, and the Webinar Series continues that consultation.

The Department acknowledges there is a large amount of change proposed and will be working to ensure all Councillors and Council staff are informed of the reforms. The webinar series is available for On Demand viewing. There is a dedicated telephone hotline, 07 3452 6747, available between the hours of 8:30am to 5:00pm, Monday to Friday and a dedicated email address This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. for any queries about the reforms. The Department will also continue to have conversations with stakeholders including the Local Government Association of Queensland.

The mandatory candidate training will be a training course developed and endorsed by the Department. The training will help candidates understand their obligations as candidates and outline the responsibilities of a Councillor. It is expected that the training will be available through a range of delivery methods to ensure all intending candidates across Queensland are able to access the training. For example, face to face training and online training.

The availability of the mandatory training online will enable candidates to access the training whenever they decide to run, even if that decision is not made until the last day for nomination.

It is expected that the training will be delivered free of charge.

Yes. This will ensure that even experienced Councillors will be informed about the new requirements for candidates and Councillors.

Mandatory candidate training will be for both candidates and sitting Councillors who decide to stand again for election. This will make sure all candidates are aware of what it means to be a Councillor and the obligations that exist for both candidates and Councillors. This will allow all intending candidates to make an informed choice before formally nominating for the election.

Yes. As the training will deal with issues that will affect how a candidate runs their campaign, it is intended that the training will be available before the formal nomination period commences. It is currently intended that the training will be available from approximately six months prior to the election.

The Department acknowledges some people are already in the process of campaigning for election and that is why the Department is undertaking public awareness of the proposed reforms (the release of the Information Paper, Local Government Reforms – Key amendments currently under consideration (PDF, 357KB) currently under consideration , and the webinar series.

The Department would encourage anyone who is already campaigning or planning their campaign to familiarise themselves with the proposed reforms and to stay informed as the reforms develop. Until the legislation is passed, the Department will not know the final form of the reforms and therefore cannot implement any training until after that time.

No. The intention is for intending candidates to gain an understanding of their obligations as a candidate and a Councillor.

No. The role of a Councillor touches on a very broad range of topics. It is intended that mandatory candidate training will give an overview of the role of Councillor including such matters as the Local Government principles, the strategic role of a Councillor and the obligations of a Councillor. If elected, there are further training opportunities available to a Councillor for more detailed information about the specifics of the role such as meeting procedures, land use planning and development and financial sustainability.

No. The Department does not believe there is any evidence to show that a change in the voting methodology will give rise to party politics in Local Government. Compulsory preferential voting has been in place in Queensland in the past and is in place in other Australian States. It is up to candidates to decide whether they want to be affiliated with a political party and then ultimately up to electors to decide whether they want to vote for a person associated with a political party.

As this issue is about how the election might be run, it is proposed that Councils would make application for full postal voting to the Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ), the agency responsible for the conduct of Local Government elections. ECQ would consider the views and information provided by the Council and then make a recommendation to the Minister about whether it is in the best interests of democracy for that Council election to be run by full postal ballot.

There is no specific legislative obligation that requires community consultation as part of the full postal voting application process. However, one of the local government principles set out in the Local Government Act 2009 is meaningful community engagement. Therefore, Councils should be seeking community input about whether full postal voting is the most appropriate way to conduct the election.

Yes. Candidates will need to complete a Register of Interest. A candidate’s Register of Interest will disclose:

• membership in political parties including membership in the last 12 months
• if a candidate or close associate is involved in contractual arrangements with the Council
• if the candidate or close associate has any development applications before the Council.

This will allow electors to better understand the candidates.

Yes. It is proposed that there will be a time period being the previous 12 months.

Yes. Generally, a preferred supplier arrangement means that the Council and supplier have agreed to terms and have entered into a contractual arrangement where the supplier is obligated to provide goods and/or services to the Council at any point the Council places an order.

At the time when they complete their formal nomination.

A group can be registered right up until the close of nominations. This will allow sufficient time for the ballot papers to be appropriately prepared including details of which candidates are part of a group.

No. Just because candidates have the same views on an issue does not mean they are a group. The candidates would need to undertake group like behaviour, such as developing and committing to a shared policy, to be considered a group.

The Department is not able to give a full and complete list of what would be considered group like behaviour as there are so many iterations and variables. However, behaviour like sharing electioneering costs, using one website or social media account for more than one candidate and placing more than one candidate’s name or photo on electioneering material would be considered group like behaviour.

At this point, there is no intention to ban how-to-vote cards.

Yes. The Planning Act 2016 has statutory timeframes for when decisions need to be made about development applications. The Caretaker Period restrictions are designed to stop the Council making major decisions which would bind an incoming Council. For example, making changes to the planning rules or developing a new local area plan.

No, the Crime and Corruption Commission made it clear in its Belcarra Report that credit card usage should be prohibited. The Department acknowledges that when making online purchases, a card may be needed but it is suggested that candidates arrange with their financial institution a debit card which is linked to the candidate’s dedicated campaign bank account.

It is proposed that for both political parties and groups fielding candidates in a Local Government election that they nominate an agent who would be responsible for the election requirements including managing the dedicated campaign account, disclosing electoral donation, loans and gifts and after the conclusion of the election submitting a financial return about donations and expenditure and a bank statement for the dedicated campaign account to the Electoral Commission of Queensland. Whereas an individual candidate will need to personally manage these requirements.

If a candidate does not have all the required information to lodge a complete electoral return with the Electoral Commission of Queensland, the candidate has the option of contacting the Commission to ask for further time to submit all the required information. However, if a candidate fails to lodge an electoral return or provides the Commission with misleading information, there will be the possibility of the candidate being prosecuted for an offence which would be classified as an integrity offence. An integrity offence is a disqualifying offence and a person is automatically suspended as a Councillor when charged with a disqualifying offence. A Councillor convicted of an integrity offence automatically stops being a Councillor and is disqualified from being a Councillor for 4 years.

It is acknowledged these last 7 days of the election campaign is a busy period for candidates. It is also acknowledged that this is a time when candidates are making a last-minute push to influence the votes of undecided voters. Therefore, it is just as important for the public to be informed of any expenditure in this final period as it is for expenditure that occurs in the months leading up to an election. This will allow voters to make an informed choice on election day.

Yes, the Electoral Commission of Queensland will continue to be responsible for the publishing of real time financial disclosures by candidates.

The Electoral Commission of Queensland is the body to whom disclosures must be made and therefore, the management of disclosures, including options for how these are made, is an issue for the Commission.

Yes, the $500 threshold will include cumulative donations and expenditure.

It is important to note that the proposed reforms will not change the nature of discretionary funds and to what purposes these funds are applied. The changes proposed are about ensuring integrity and transparency and ensuring these funds are not used by Councillors as a campaigning tool in the lead up to a Local Government election. The changes proposed are:

• The amount of money that may be allocated as Councillor discretionary funds will be capped at 0.25% of general rates (excluding discretionary funds allocated for capital works of the local government)
• Unspent Councillor discretionary funds cannot be rolled over to the next financial year (funds must be allocated in that financial year)
• Councillor discretionary fund expenditure will need to be published within 7 days
• Councillor discretionary funds cannot be expended from 1 January in election years until the conclusion of the election (excluding discretionary funds allocated for capital works of the local government).

Councillor discretionary funds are allocated at the sole discretion of a Councillor. The Department acknowledges that Councillors use discretionary funds to meet the needs of their community. However, decisions about the expenditure of large amounts of money should be done in an accountable and transparent way to ensure that those funds are being applied appropriately and in the public interest of the entire Council area. Therefore, it is appropriate that the normal Council expenditure processes apply when large amounts of money are being expended.

The Department did consider this option. There are a number of Councils who do not have Councillor discretionary funds and use the budget process instead. However, the proposals seek to provide some improved governance of Councillor discretionary funds, not to do away with them altogether.

It is not proposed to make any retrospective changes to Councillor discretionary funds.

It is not easy to provide a yes or no answer to this question. The Department is aware that Councils are in budget development phase now. The Department will be cognisant of this issue when making recommendations about the timing for commencement of these reforms. Ultimately, this will be an issue for Parliament to consider.

The proposed reforms are intended to be about when discretionary funds are allocated. So, if a Councillor wishes to allocate discretionary funds to an event held which will be held from 1 January 2020 onwards, before the conclusion of the Local Government election, the Councillor will need to ensure the allocation of those funds occurs before 1 January 2020.

The Department was very aware of the diversity of Councils across Queensland when considering the issue of Councillor discretionary funds. This is why it is proposed that a percentage of general rates be used to determine the discretionary funds cap. This means that larger Councils with larger rates revenue will have a larger pool of discretionary funds to draw on than smaller Councils.

These reforms will not impact the Council’s overall revenue. Councils have the option of deciding to provide funding to community organisations through their usual general budget process. This would mean the Council is determining the level of funding provided and so this type of funding would not fall within the definition of Councillor discretionary funds.

Under the proposed reforms, Mayors can only direct Chief Executive Officers in terms of matters that are lawful and in accordance with Council decisions and policies.

Further, consideration is being given to a requirement that Mayoral directions be recorded and publicly available for inspection.

If the Mayor is seeking to issue a direction to the Chief Executive Officer and the other Councillors disagree with that, the issue could be brought before Council (through the relevant meeting procedures). This would allow full Council to discuss and vote on the matter. Such Council decision may then limit the ability of the Mayor to issue a direction if such direction will not be in consistent with that Council decision.

The current legislation is prescriptive about who sits on a recruitment panel for senior executive employees (see section 196 of the Local Government Act 2009). The proposed reforms will remove this prescription to reflect that it is the Chief Executive Officer who is ultimately responsible for the recruitment of Council staff. However, the proposed reforms will not prohibit a Councillor from sitting on a selection panel. This would mean if a Councillor wished to participate in a recruitment panel, that would be a matter for the Chief Executive Officer to determine.

The proposed reforms are intended to reflect that it is the Chief Executive Officer who has ultimate responsibility for the recruitment of Council staff.

Further information regarding regulatory reforms has now been made available on the Department’s local government reform page on its website.

It is proposed to introduce compulsory preferential voting for Mayors and single Councillor divisions. Full preferential proportional representation will be introduced for undivided Councillor elections.

The intention is to align the voting methods for local government with State and Federal elections. This would assist in avoiding voter confusion, by using the same voting methodology across all levels of government. This would ensure that the candidate preferred by more voters will be elected, ensuring that every vote counts.

All ballot papers at the next election would look the same. What would change is that voters must number every box.

There are no changes to how votes would be counted for Mayoral candidates and where only one Councillor is to be elected. Where more than one Councillor is to be elected, the count would change from a first past the post count to a proportional count. Proportional voting avoids situations where the voting preferences of the majority of electors are ignored.

The introduction of public campaign funding for candidates would align the State and local government electoral processes. Candidates, groups of candidates and political parties that receive more than 4% of first preference votes will be entitled to $1.57 per first preference vote, up to the amount of electoral expenditure.

This may encourage more people to run as candidates by subsidising the cost of campaigning. It is hoped that this will increase diversity amongst Councillors, ensuring better overall representation of their communities. The cost would be borne by each local government. Whether local governments seek to pass that cost on to ratepayers will be a matter for each local government to determine.

The Government has engaged with local governments over the past 12 months listening to feedback about the operation of the current provisions with respect to conflicts of interest. We have heard these concerns and the overwhelming support for further amendments to clarify particular matters. As a result of this feedback, amendments to the conflict of interest provisions are proposed. It is anticipated that these amendments will provide Councillors with greater clarity over how conflicts of interest are identified and dealt with.

The introduction of expenditure caps aims to improve transparency, reduce integrity risks associated with reliance on significant donations and create diversity by levelling the playing field between candidates. Candidature should not be limited to only those who are wealthy or who can procure large political donations.

Requiring all Council committees to keep minutes would enhance the transparency of council decisions and how conflicts of interest are handled during committee meetings.

The requirements for councillors to maintain registers of interest would be clarified to improve the quality and timeliness of disclosures of interest by Councillors. Councillors would be required to submit a new register within 30 days of their election, with failure to do so resulting in the Councillor losing office. Councillors would also be required to provide annual updates to their registers of interest.

The contents of registers of interest would be made to align as much as practicable with those for State Members of Parliament.

The changes would help Councillors to keep their registers accurate and up to date and increase transparency and integrity in handling Councillors’ conflicts of interest.

In Councils that do not have divisions, allowing a candidate to nominate for election as Mayor and Councillor would ensure that if the candidate was not successful in the Mayoral election they would still be able to be elected as a Councillor and participate in the Council. This would avoid a candidate who would be a high-quality candidate for Councillor (including an existing Councillor) from being excluded from the Councillor elections due to their running for Mayor.

The proposed change would remove the need for candidates to choose whether they run for Mayor or Councillor and remove a disincentive for successful Councillors to seek election as Mayor.

Yes. If compulsory preferential voting is introduced it is the intention that voters mark every box on the ballot paper. However, the Department accepts that in some of the large regional Councils there may be very large pools of candidates that nominate to be Councillors and that it might be difficult for electors to know enough about all those candidates to be able to make an informed voting decision. That is, whom to assign their preferences to when casting their ballot. The Department will be providing feedback to the Government about this issue, so the Government may full consider this issue when making the final decision about whether to introduce compulsory preferential voting in undivided Councils.

This is a matter for the Electoral Commission of Queensland, but the Department understands the Commission makes every effort to have votes count where possible.

No, this is not part of the proposed reforms.

The proposal being considered is for Mayoral elections to be changed to compulsory preferential voting.

The current voting system for Mayoral elections is optional preferential voting and there is no intention to change the system to first past the post. It is proposed that voting for Mayors be changed to compulsory preferential voting. This means that Mayoral votes will continue to be counted by using preferences to achieve a majority.

In 2017, when the State Government electoral system was changed from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential there was a minor increase in the level of informal voting being about 1 to 2% increase. As such, it is not expected that the proposed changes would lead to a large increase in informal votes.

The Crime and Corruption Commission made it very clear in the Belcarra Report that it felt the other Councillors are best placed to determine whether or not a Councillor is able to resolve a matter in the public interest. The declarable conflict of interest process reflects this view. However, if a Councillor makes a declarable conflict of interest, that Councillor has the option of deciding themselves to leave the room if they are personally of the view that they cannot resolve the conflict in the public interest.

Currently under the Local Government Act 2009, if an issue falls within the definition of ordinary business, the prescribed conflict of interest process does not need to be followed by Councillors. Under the current definition, ordinary business is quite broad and includes things like the remuneration of Councillors, the making or levying of rates and charges, a planning scheme or amendment of a planning scheme, the adoption of the Council’s budget etc. However, this means that in some cases, conflicts of interest are not being declared and Councillors are voting on issues which have the potential for major personal impacts. For example, if a proposed planning scheme amendment will only impact one property which is owned by a Councillor, the current ordinary business exemption means the Councillor can vote on the amendment without the need to declare a conflict of interest.

As such, consideration is being given to reducing the circumstances in which a Councillor does not need to declare a conflict of interest.

There have been examples where in a Council meeting, a majority of Councillors are declaring conflicts of interest (sometime, in the case of groups of Councillors, the conflicts of interest will be the exact same conflict of interest for every Councillor in the group). This is leading to situations where the Councillors are regularly unable to decide a matter before the Council meeting.

Under the proposed changes, there will be a number of options to address these situations. These will include the current options of delegation as per section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009 and seeking the Minister’s approval for a Councillor to participate in the meeting while a matter is discussed and voted on (if the matter cannot be delegated) and a new option where, if due to the conflict of interest process a quorum cannot be formed, the non-conflicted Councillors are able to decide whether one or more of the conflicted Councillors are able to return to the meeting to deal with the matter.

This new option would involve the non-conflicted Councillors carefully considering the nature of the prescribed conflicts of interest and/or declared conflicts of interest and the ability of those conflicted Councillors to exercise decision-making in the public interest.

The Department acknowledges these situations are occurring and can place a Chief Executive Officer in a position where they are making significant decisions. Ultimately, the Local Government Act 2009 provides different mechanisms for the Council to use when facing the lack of a quorum due to Councillor conflicts of interest. One mechanism is delegation. Section 257 of the Act provides a number of options for delegating a matter, one of which is delegation to the Chief Executive Officer. It is for the Council to decide which of these options is appropriate in all the circumstances.

It should be noted that the new proposal is for a minority of non-conflicted Councillors to allow conflicted Councillors to return to the meeting to decide a matter.

Yes. It would be open for the one non-conflicted Councillor to do this. Remembering that the non-conflicted Councillor would need to carefully consider the nature of the prescribed conflicts of interest and/or declared conflicts of interest and the ability of those conflicted Councillors to exercise decision-making in the public interest.

The Department has found that the concept of a financial benefit or loss flowing from a Council decision can be difficult to determine. And in many cases, a financial gain or loss may not even be a relevant consideration. Instead under the proposed reforms, the legislation will have a prescriptive list of situations which will be a prescribed conflict of interest. This takes away any ambiguity.

The Department is carefully considering this issue. It may be that this concept of a contract with the Council is broadened to include other arrangements relating to procurement such as clearly specifying that standing offer arrangements and panel arrangements are captured within the definition of prescribed conflicts of interest.

One of the proposed reforms is for a Councillor with a declarable conflict of interest to be able to provide information about a matter which is under consideration. It is important to remember that under section 175I of the Local Government Act 2009 it is an offence for a Councillor with a conflict of interest in a matter to influence or attempt to influence another Councillor to vote on the matter in a particular way. The proposed reforms will allow a Councillor with a declarable conflict of interest to give factual information about a matter to the Chief Executive Officer.

Non-cash gifts or donations need to be treated similarly to cash gifts or donations as these may give rise to a declarable conflict of interest or a prescribed conflict of interest. The Councillor who receives a non-cash gift or donation will need to determine the monetary value of the gift or donation. If it is worth more than $2,000 it will be a prescribed conflict of interest. If it is worth $2,000 or less it may be a declarable conflict of interest. The Department is considering this matter further.

Therefore, it is very important that Councillors understand the nature and value of any gift or donation they receive.

The Department is still considering this issue of whether gifts endure.

Yes, this is cumulative. The Crime and Corruption Commission clearly stated that the issue of influence can be small and gradual. Therefore, it is important for Councillors to pay attention to multiple small donations.

If a group receives a donation or gift, each member of the group is taken to receive a proportionate share of that gift or donation. For example, if a group of 10 receives a gift or donation of $40,000, each member of that group is deemed to have received $4,000. In this example, this is an amount over the threshold and so would give rise to a prescribed conflict of interest.

This will align the register of interests process with the requirements placed on State Government Members of Parliament. Also, the Department regularly comes across registers of interests which remain static over a long period. This will be an annual reminder to Councillors to review their register.

This will align the register of interests process with the requirements placed on State Government Members of Parliament.

The proposed changes will provide for this scenario. The requirement will be to submit a new register of interests within 30 days after the election or within a longer period provided by the Minister. A Councillor would need to write to the Minister and request a longer timeframe. Such request would need to provide details about why the 30 day timeframe cannot be met (for example, illness).