Case Studies
Case study 1: Campaign donations
Case study 2: Ballarat Council
Case study 3: Muto misconduct
Case study 4: Tran Siu
Case study 1: Campaign donations
After the elections held on 28 November 2008, five candidates from five different councils failed to lodge a campaign donation return form resulting in investigations by the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate (Inspectorate).
Section 62 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires candidates standing for election to provide a campaign donation return form within 60 days of the election date to the council CEO disclosing all donations valued at $200 or above. (The donation value required to be disclosed increased on 24 September 2010 to $500 or above).
Candidates are required to identify donations used for or in connection with election campaigns for transparency and to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
All candidates standing in the November 2008 elections were required to submit their campaign donation return forms by 28 January 2009 however, five failed to do so despite receiving reminders in writing, therefore breaching the Act.
Breaching this section of the act is a prosecutable offence and carries a penalty of up to $5481 per breach.
The Inspectorate contacted each candidate to address the breach. The individual circumstance of each matter was different resulting in varying outcomes.
One candidate was found guilty of the offence without a conviction being recorded, was ordered to pay a fine and submit their completed campaign donation return form. Three cases were handled through the Criminal Justice Diversion Program where the candidates acknowledged their breach. Candidates had no conviction recorded but were ordered to pay an amount to the court, submit a written apology and submit their completed campaign donation return forms within specified timeframes.
Diversion was attempted with the fifth candidate however, the candidate's failure to meet the diversion requirements led to court proceedings. This resulted in a finding of guilt without conviction, a significantly increased amount to pay in costs and the requirement to submit their completed campaign donation return form within specified timeframes.
Case study 2: Ballarat Council
An audit can often be seen as a daunting process by many local councils. However it can be a constructive, informative and useful process to help councils improve a broad range of business areas, particularly in being compliant with the Local Government Act 1989.
The relationship built between Ballarat City Council and the Inspectorate has been an excellent example of working together towards a common goal. The Inspectorate team worked with Ballarat to complete the audit in mid 2010. Ballarat was eager to ensure that all business areas of the council were compliant with the relevant guidelines.
Ballarat City Council was very pleased with the process as CEO Anthony Schinck explained.
“The audit process provided us with the opportunity to obtain experienced, independent advice regarding processes and compliance with the Local Government Act. The outcomes of the audit provided us with an impetus for improvement and to review current processes.”
The council also remarked that the inspectors were easy to work with and open to discussion regarding interpretation of the legislation.
“As with all audit processes they are an excellent opportunity for objective review of compliance activities,” said Mr Schinck.
Overall the process resulted in practical outcomes for the council, helping it to work on areas of its business to ensure compliance into the future.
Case study 3 – Muto misconduct
After an extensive legal process, Cr Milvan Muto admitted to engaging in 13 incidents of misconduct at the City of Greater Shepparton Council during 2009-2010. The incidents included assaulting a council staff member, calling a council officer ‘a dog’ and making offensive comments during a council meeting.Misconduct is a breach of the councillor conduct principles of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act). The management of misconduct or serious misconduct matters is the responsibility of the council however, if internal council processes fail to resolve the dispute, an application may be made by one or more councillors to have the matter considered by a Councillor Conduct Panel.
Where there is a complaint of gross misconduct, the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate (Inspectorate) can undertake an investigation. The Inspectorate investigated the complaints against Cr Muto as part of a complaint of gross misconduct. The case was lodged at VCAT in July 2010.
An agreement made by both parties to resolve the matter was approved by order of VCAT President, Justice Ian Ross, on 4 March 2011.
The order included that:
- Cr Muto be reprimanded by the Tribunal for councillor misconduct
- Cr Muto must make a public apology at the first public council meeting he attends
- Cr Muto must take a leave of absence for a period of one month (4 March 2011 – 3 April 2011)
- For a period of five months, commencing 5 April 2011, Cr Muto will not perform any duties as a councillor with the exception of attendance at the monthly public council meetings, a brief meeting with council CEO prior to the monthly council meeting to discuss the agenda items and to attend meetings of the ‘Shepp Show Me’ committee.
As outlined in section 76C of the Act, council is required to develop its own Councillor Code of Conduct and is responsible for its ongoing administration, including internal processes for addressing breaches of the Code where possible.
Case study 4 – Tran Siu
On 5 September 2011, more than two years after the initial allegation, former Brimbank councillor Tran Siu pleaded guilty in Sunshine Magistrates’ Court to printing and distributing an unregistered how-to-vote card and providing false or misleading information to the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate. The offences were breaches of section 56 and 223C of the Local Government Act 1989 respectively. Mr Siu had initially pleaded not guilty but, in the face of compelling evidence, changed his plea to guilty.
The investigation process was lengthy and involved sourcing expertise from the Australian Federal Police and an international agency to gather conclusive evidence that proved Mr Siu had in fact ordered and paid for the printing of 8000 copies of the unregistered card.
Statistics provided by the Victorian Electoral Commission showed 95% of individuals who voted for Tran Siu followed the preferences on the unregistered how-to-vote card, strongly suggesting it had influenced voting patterns and assisted Mr Siu’s election to council.
The conviction means Mr Siu is banned from standing for council or federal parliament, or from becoming a company director for seven years. He was also ordered to pay $11,500 in fines and costs.