Frequently asked questions
How the department deals with complaints
This fact sheet provides general information about how the department deals with complaints about the conduct of a local government councillor in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2009 (LGA) or the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (CoBA).
The department does not provide information on or discuss specific complaints, all of which are treated in confidence.
Preliminary assessment
All complaints made about the conduct of a local government councillor, except a complaint made by either the mayor or the local government’s chief executive officer (CEO), must be referred to the CEO for preliminary assessment. Complaints received by the department requiring preliminary assessment by the CEO will be forwarded to the CEO [s.176B(3) LGA; s.179(3) CoBA].
What complaints does the department deal with?
The department’s chief executive deals with complaints about the conduct of a local government councillor (except a councillor of the Brisbane City Council (BCC)) where the complaint is:
· made by either the CEO or the mayor [s.176B(2) LGA]
· assessed by the CEO as being about:
1. inappropriate conduct by a mayor or deputy mayor [s.176C(3)(a)(i) LGA] or
2. misconduct by any councillor, including a mayor or deputy mayor [s.176C(4)(a) LGA]
· referred to the department by the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC).
If the CEO refers a complaint about the conduct of a councillor to the department, the CEO must provide the complainant and the accused councillor with written advice of how the complaint was assessed (as inappropriate conduct or misconduct) and that the complaint has been referred to the department’s chief executive [s.176C(7) LGA].
Complaints about councillors of the Brisbane City Council
Except for preliminary assessment of a complaint about the conduct of a BCC councillor made by the CEO, the department has no role in dealing with complaints about the conduct of a BCC councillor which are heard and decided by the BCC councillor conduct review panel [refer Chapter 6, Part 2, division 6 of CoBA].
How does the department assess a complaint?
Despite the preliminary assessment by the CEO, the department’s chief executive may decide to dismiss the complaint (or part of the complaint) if the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance or otherwise an abuse of process [s.177(2)(a) LGA].
The department’s chief executive can also decide the complaint is about inappropriate conduct (rather than misconduct) or is about misconduct (rather than inappropriate conduct) [s.177(2)(b) LGA]. In addition, the department’s chief executive can decide to take no further action [s.177(2)(c) LGA] or some other action in relation to the complaint [s. 177(2) (d) LGA].
If the department’s chief executive agrees the complaint is about inappropriate conduct of a mayor or deputy mayor, then they may take disciplinary action under section 181(2) of the Act. This takes the form of one or both orders, in writing, which reprimands the councillor for the inappropriate conduct and/or advises the councillor that any repeat of the same inappropriate conduct will be referred to a regional conduct review panel as misconduct.
Where the department’s chief executive agrees the complaint is about misconduct, the matter is referred to either the Local Government Remuneration and Discipline Tribunal (Tribunal) or a Regional Conduct Review Panel (Panel) for hearing and determination. Once a matter is referred to either the Tribunal or a Panel, the department has no further role in deciding the complaint, other than to advise parties of outcomes of matters independently determined by the Tribunal or a Panel.
Investigation by the department
A complaint may not contain sufficient information or supporting evidence for the department’s chief executive to decide the type of conduct described in the complaint. Clarifying information or evidence may be gathered through an investigation process conducted by the department or outsourced to an external investigator.
How long does it take for the department to deal with a complaint?
The number and complexity of complaints varies considerably. It is not possible to give a specific timeframe. The timeframe is dependent on the complexity of any investigative process, subsequent requests for information from a disciplinary body, the number of witnesses to be contacted, levels of cooperation by councillors and witnesses.
The complainant and accused councillor must be informed in writing of the outcome of the complaint process. The CEO is also notified of the outcome. The CEO is required to maintain a record of all councillor conduct complaints and is responsible for publication of certain information about complaints where the allegation has been sustained.
What does an investigation involve?
An investigation gathers facts and evidence about the allegation and to assist the department’s chief executive to decide the type of conduct and/or misconduct and whether the matter should be dealt with by the Tribunal or Panel.
The investigator may seek to gather evidence in a number of ways, including interviews with the complainant, accused councillor, CEO and/or other witnesses. The investigator may also seek relevant supporting documentation. The investigator will then finalise a report for consideration by the department’s chief executive.
The rights of councillors and complainants
Councillors and complainants are able to seek independent legal advice if they choose. The accused councillor cannot be compelled to provide evidence that may tend towards self-incrimination. If a councillor is required to appear before the Tribunal or Panel, the councillor must attend in accordance with the Notice of Hearing issued in accordance with the LGA. Further, if the complaint being determined by the Tribunal or Panel was made by another councillor, the councillor who made the complaint must confirm the complaint to the Tribunal or Panel before the hearing can proceed.
Public interest disclosures
If the complainant has made a public interest disclosure, as defined by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010, the discloser is afforded protection from reprisal under that Act. The maximum penalty for proven reprisal is 167 penalty units or two years imprisonment.
Decision by the department’s chief executive
The department’s chief executive is required to advise the complainant, the accused councillor and the CEO the outcome of a decision made by the chief executive (including decisions made under the provisions of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001), the Tribunal or a Regional Conduct Review Panel.