Local Government Amendment (Targeted Reform) Bill 2026 (No. 10)

Wednesday 27 May 2026

[12.37 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Thank you, Madam Deputy President. As a former councillor and deputy mayor of Launceston, I feel I have a good understanding of council, like other members in this place. More recent members of Council are probably a little bit more up to date than I am with the workings. This bill seeks to bring in a number of measures to address issues which have arisen over time for our local governments and councils. It's clear that community expectations change, the scope of work that's undertaken by local government changes and expands, and consequently the people who are representing their communities come to their positions as councillors with different priorities, backgrounds, skills and expertise.

It's difficult to have a one‑size‑fits‑all legislative framework for our local governments, but it's also necessary for them to have the space to run their communities as they think necessary and for each of them to be held to the same standards and rules as other councils. I think it was the member for McIntyre that might have mentioned that even in our role, more often than not, we actually get called on with council issues. I would say probably 25 per cent of the issues that I deal with every day, every week in Launceston would be council issues, so I have to keep up with local council issues because I find it's far easier to deal with it than it is to pass it on.

Ms Rattray - Through you, Madam Chair: I think sometimes people haven't realised that we're no longer on our own local council because we are still Council, as in Legislative Council.

Ms ARMITAGE - You're quite right, and with the name Launceston, obviously too. Sometimes when I wander up to Prospect I'm often told, no, we're with Meander Valley Council, and I say, well, yes, you are; however, I am no longer Launceston City Council, but now the Launceston Legislative Council.

Madam DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Maybe you need to change the name of your electorate.

Ms Rattray - They've already done that once since I've been here, change the name of your electorate: you used to be the member for Paterson.

Ms ARMITAGE - That was a long time ago, I must say.

Madam DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Some of us have a long memory.

Ms ARMITAGE - I've only been here 15 years, so that was before my time. It is further necessary, as the minister pointed out, that communities can have trust in their local councils and that they operate with integrity, honesty and professionalism. The Future of Local Government Review highlighted a number of issues and challenges that have arisen in local government with the input of those who work with councillors, live in the community and from councillors themselves. 6,500 submissions to this review indicates the level of engagement with the community and the necessity for necessary changes. That's probably a good time to mention the amount of emails we've received asking about consultation. I think that's really important that there obviously has been consultation, but maybe some in the community may have missed it, which is unfortunate, but does happen.

To this end, the bill addresses three key areas:

·         the introduction of changes to councillor numbers and delivering a different allowance structure for elected members;

·         equipping regulators and decision-makers with more flexible and effective tools to support councils dealing with emerging governance and capability issues and clearer and more decisive avenues for dealing with serious councillor misconduct;

·         enhancing councils' strategic capability through better long-term planning, internal auditing and greater transparency for the community.

To the first issue, as the minister pointed out, Tasmania has one of the highest numbers of local government elected representatives per head of population of any jurisdiction and some of the lowest levels of remuneration. I must say when I first started on council, I think I was paid $9000 and was quite amazed that I was actually getting paid to do something I actually liked. It's obviously different for each person.

This bill will seek to assign councils to representation category of either nine or seven councillors using a scoring system based on population, infrastructure, development activity and geographic size. It further establishes six allowance categories. This ultimately reduces the total number of councillors by 50, to 213 statewide.

The rationale is that no council should have fewer than seven councillors, and Tasmania's five largest councils will each have nine elected representatives. Along with the scoring system to determine remuneration, the allowances those councillors will be entitled to will be determined according to the complexity and workload of activities undertaken by those councils and their councillors.

The minister stated that this would be a cost neutral reform and that estimated savings at the statewide level are estimated at approximately $85,000. At the individual level, it's expected that some councils will experience modest savings and other small cost increases. I wonder if more information could please be provided about that and what measures are in place to ensure that no individual council or anyone employed at any of those councils will be negatively impacted. I will mention it shortly with regard to some of the questions raised by some of the councils about costs associated and how some of the advice is unclear.

Serious councillor misconduct has unfortunately been in the spotlight a few times in recent years. While it's not necessary to go into specifics, it's obviously necessary for communities to be able to have faith and trust in councils, councillors themselves and local government as an institution. I do have a letter from a local councillor, which I think is worth commenting on and perhaps noting because I will raise it when we get into the committee stage.

I won't name the councillor, but it does say - [tbc 12.44]

I'm concerned that the Section 28ZR serious councillor misconduct on page 30 of the bill makes no reference to psychological or psychosocial harm. 2B infers that the risk of physical harm is the focus, just as the risk of physical harm is the focus when seeking a restraining order from the police. Psychosocial harm causes so much damage to recipients' health and wellbeing and their ability to do their job well. I hope you have you can mention this important and relevant point.

Whether that could be actually noted perhaps in your response, whether that's included.

That being said, this bill seeks to introduce three reforms. New serious councillor misconduct provisions. More flexible early intervention tools to address governance issues at councils before they escalate. New learning and development requirements for councillors to ensure they have the knowledge and skills to confidently and competently serve their communities.

This bill employs the Director of Local Government to investigate and refer instances of serious misconduct to TASCAT. Serious counsellor misconduct is defined as a serious or significant breach of the Local Government Code of Conduct and is to be determined by reference to criteria and considerations outlined in the bill and supported further by ministerial guidelines.

Can the minister please give some further information about what sort of evidence is to be required for escalation to TASCAT? Allegations should be taken seriously; however I'm wondering what sort of evidence will be required to substantiate and escalate any matters of this nature. It would be a disappointing outcome to see a mechanism like this intended to help and improve the local government sector be used as something of a vehicle for vexatious and frivolous claims to be made and disrupt the business of local councils and councillors. That being said, Madam Acting President -

MADAM DEPUTY PRESIDENT - It’s deputy actually.

Ms ARMITAGE - Sorry, Deputy President. You're acting as well.

Ms Rattray - That's actually the member at the lectern, if she gets up there.

MADAM DEPUTY PRESIDENT - She's speaking about herself; she can't be in two places at once.

Ms ARMITAGE - It's always about me. That being said -

MADAM DEPUTY PRESIDENT - At least you're honest.

Ms ARMITAGE - Always, probably too honest sometimes. I believe it's appropriate where there has been a robust investigation and fair hearing for TASCAT to have the power to issue an expanded set of sanctions, including dismissal and disqualification from office, as well as costs. I believe the community wants it and expects it. At ordinary jobs, a person can be dismissed for misconduct and don't believe someone holding an elected position at local government level should be held to expectations that are any different.

The appointment of independent temporary advisers to step in where there's clear evidence of emerging governance issues at a council, is a good step. It will mean that issues can be prevented before they start or before they get too out of hand. As we know, when these sorts of issues arise, they can result in the mechanisms of local government slowing down or stopping entirely. Which can be extremely costly to investigate and repair. This is in addition to the reputational harm that can be done to councils and councillors and the level of trust and confidence the community likewise has in their local council.

The implementation of learning and development for councillors is an additional good step. As I mentioned earlier, our communities are changing and our elected representatives are changing along with it. That's a wonderful thing because it means that people see themselves reflected in councils and that new skills and different experiences and background enrich what councils have to offer. But it's also important to ensure that each council and councillor is on the same page regarding expectations and competencies.

It's reasonable for communities and electors to have the expectation that the people they vote in to represent them know how they can actually do that. Understanding the foundations of local government, a basic idea of how things like laws work and how every person's voice counts is completely necessary. To this end, the completion of mandatory training focused on statutory duties, meeting procedures and the principles of good governance is necessary and is a step in the right direction.

I do wonder what measures will be available to compel councillors to undertake this training. Would noncompletion or refusal to participate be considered serious councillor misconduct? If I could have more information about how this would be enforced, Leader, it would be appreciated.

I have a number of letters, and submissions, some of which are worth reading into the Hansard. It was mentioned by the member for Hobart, from the office of the Mayor of the Northern Midlands Council. It says - [tbc 12.49]

We are concerned, however, with the lack of information regarding funding for the implementation of some reforms and the lack of clarity in some of the language used. Additionally, we are wary of the word mandate as it seems to be a way of enforcing rules which lack mechanisms for accountability and enforcement.

While generally they're supportive of the change. From the CEO of the Launceston council now called the City of Launceston - [tbc 12.50]

The City of Launceston broadly supports the intent of the bill, particularly its focus on strengthening governance, improving transparency and enhancing the long-term strategic capability of councils. These are important and necessary reforms that reflect the evolving role of local government as a key driver of community wellbeing and economic development. In particular, council supports measures to strengthen integrity and accountability, including the introduction of an independent pathway for serious councillor misconduct and expanded early intervention tools. Greater emphasis on strategic planning, workforce development and community engagement, recognising the increasing complexity of council operations and expectations. Improved transparency through consistent performance reporting and enhanced rates information for the community. However, consistent with previous council discussions and sector feedback, council offers the following comments and suggested refinements.

Councillor numbers and representation. Council acknowledges the intent to provide a consistent, data‑driven methodology for determining councillor numbers. While they support a more structured and transparent approach, it's important that any model retains flexibility to reflect the unique characteristics, growth pressures and service demands of individual municipalities. They encourage ongoing review mechanisms to ensure the methodology remains responsive to changing local conditions over time.

Ministerial powers and local autonomy. The bill introduces expanded ministerial powers in areas such as performance reporting, internal audit requirements and rates notice content. While consistency is important, council emphasises the need to maintain an appropriate balance between state oversight and local decision‑making. Clear consultation requirements and safeguards should be embedded to ensure councillors retain the ability to respond to local priorities and community expectations.

Temporary advisers and intervention mechanisms. Council supports early intervention tools to address governance issues before they escalate. The proposed temporary adviser model is a constructive step, provided it remains advisory in nature and does not undermine the role of elected members or the administration. Clarity around thresholds for intervention and strong procedural fairness will be essential.

Implementation and resourcing. The breadth of reform, particularly in areas such as workforce planning, community engagement strategies and internal audit functions, will have resourcing and capability implications for councils. A staged implementation approach is appropriate and council would strongly encourage continued partnership with the sector, including consideration of funding support, shared service models and practical guidance to ensure successful delivery.

In summary, council supports the direction of the proposed reforms and recognises the opportunity to strengthen the local government sector. They encourage continued collaboration with councils to ensure the final framework strikes the right balance between consistency, accountability and local flexibility. Council appreciates the opportunity to contribute and would welcome ongoing engagement as the reforms progress.

That was from Sam Johnson OAM, GAICD, the chief executive officer of the City of Launceston. The City of Launceston also put in their official feedback, whereby most, or all, of the proposals were supported apart from miscellaneous amendments. The submission from the City of Launceston to the Department of Premier and Cabinet said, 'however, face‑to‑face attendance should be encouraged, perhaps through conditions on remote attendance to enhance communication and strong team bonds.'[TBC] I believe with that, and it has been mentioned by other members, that people can attend remotely. I think it's really important that that is exceptional circumstances, because the last thing you really want is the majority of councillors to decide they can actually do it remotely and find that's an easier way to go, so it should be under exceptional circumstances.

From the Meander Valley Council, my third council, unlike the member for McIntrye, I don't have six, I have two reasonably within my electorate and Northern Midlands council, where I have probably two streets, but still.

Ms Rattray - They all count.

Ms ARMITAGE - They all count, and it's very important to represent them all as best we can.

The Meander Valley Council notes:

… that there are several proposed additions being introduced, including a workforce development strategy, community engagement strategy, internal audit function, mandatory information in rates notice.

It's anticipated that for the majority of councils in Tasmania, the ability to achieve compliance with the proposed new mandatory requirements will require consultants to develop this work. The existing workforce simply will not have the capacity and, in some cases, experience a take on new projects of this nature. The developments of these new additions would come at a cost, which would ultimately need to be passed on to the property owners of each respective local government area if pursued by the Tasmanian government. At a time when the demand for council services has never been higher and many property owners are experiencing cost‑of‑living pressures, we highlight this point.

And I believe it is an important point because in many of the areas here, one of the overall things that keeps coming through from the submissions is the cost of implementing these proposals and who is going to pay. At the end of the day, while it mentions that it would probably be cost neutral to deal with allowances, the cost of the other proposals are not cost neutral and the people who will be paying are the ratepayers who are already struggling now. It would be good to hear from the government what they believe the overall cost for the proposals are and whether they intend to actually provide extra funding.

Ms Rattray - Through you, Madam Deputy President, I'm certainly not the minister, but I have some thoughts and I'm hoping that the advisers are keen to hear them.

Ms ARMITAGE - I look forward to your thoughts, Leader.

The feedback from Meander council is supportive of most of the proposed legislation, but there has been some concern.

Introducing the need for policy for continuing professional development, where the general manager must prepare a policy for council adoption in relation to the continued professional development of councilors within six months of an election.

The question here from Meander was, it's unclear at this time what will be required from the proposed new policy and is, therefore, difficult to comment on. There is, however, a level of apprehension that the general manager is being required to prepare professional development policy for the councillors, who employ the general manager. Maybe that could be explained in the response, Leader?

I won't go through all the comments.

Ms Rattray - Very proactive counsel, through you Madam Deputy President.

Ms ARMITAGE - All my councils are very proactive and very good councils.

Another one that I think could do with an answer when you get to the response, Leader, is introducing the need for a community engagement strategy whereby,

70DA (1) A council must establish and implement a strategy for engagement with the community when developing the council's plans, policies and programs and for the purpose of determining its major activities.

.

84A(2)(b) the scope and types of performance indicators and metrics that are to be used; and

(c) the methodologies and protocols for the measurement, reporting and presentation of performance data.

The council feedback: 'While the details are unclear' - I'm reading in a lot of the representations from a variety of councils. Many of them say the details are unclear and I would hope that details would be clear so they can make a good submission. So it says:

While the details are unclear. It's expected that the consultant engagement would be required in order to develop a community engagement strategy at the council's cost. It's recommended that this requirement be on a non‑compulsory basis rather than mandatory as proposed

Because with everything being mandatory, obviously the cost is there for the councils that can't afford it.

84A. Introducing the requirement for mandatory performance reporting

(1) The Minister, by order, may specify performance reporting requirements that are to apply in relation to councils.

In this case, the Meander Valley Council is very supportive of the mandatory performance reporting, a position provided to the Tasmanian government in previous submissions. Another one,

84B. Introducing the need for internal audit

(1) The Minister, by order, may specify requirements that are to apply to councils in relation to the conduct of internal audits.

The council feedback on this one was,

The details of what is proposed by internal audit is unclear. This could take many forms. In principle, council is supportive of the introduction of an internal audit function, however, recommend that this be on a non‑compulsory basis rather than mandatory as proposed.

It is a bit disappointing when we keep hearing that it's unclear.

[2.39 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Thank you, Mr President. I did receive a lot of correspondence with regard to this bill, some from councillors, some from councils. While I'm not prepared to name the councillors, I think some of the comments are worth putting on the record. From a Tasmanian councillor:

In my opinion, this targeted reform bill has been left far too late in the four‑year term to implement.

It mentions reducing councillors and bringing in a lower quorum; that doesn't seem like good democracy to this person, with a large or small council to represent its constituents.

They're concerned that it poses a risk of biased opinion and a huge lack of diversity in representation and decision‑making. A smaller councillor group may also be easy to control and influence. This could have the potential to wipe out independent representation and increase partisanship in local government. They continue: no true financial saving by reducing numbers of councillors but paying them more. It also mentions that some local government areas have been traditionally low in elected people who identify as female. There's good representation in Tasmania, currently well‑balanced in gender overall in councils of around 42.5 per cent at present regarding elected females; however, overall in Australia, women are still underrepresented in every level of government as of this year. It says:

I would like to see a gender impact assessment requirement before this reform is carried out to evaluate the impact of the proposed change on the representation of women on councils and the participation of first‑time, nonincumbent female candidates; monitoring and public reporting six months after the election for gender representation data for each council; and comparative data showing changes from previous elections.

There is concern, particularly around some female candidates - and I think some have come in later as well that haven't had much of a chance to be able to be there and represent over a long term - that by reducing the numbers, it certainly does make it harder for them to get back and to represent maybe more minority groups as well. I think the member for Murchison mentioned, when you were talking about quorums ‑ I must admit that every now and again I do watch Launceston's council meetings, and on many occasions I have failed to see 12 councillors there. I can understand the need to reduce, but, of course reducing to nine and then if some don't turn up, with the quorum of five, then possibly three people could be making these really important decisions, and I think that's something that really is worth considering. Even if they had 10, you're still looking at really small numbers if people don't turn up, and I think that's a real issue.

The other issue that's not addressed in here is when people leave council during the meeting and don't return. I know that does happen in different councils around the state. I have heard from a variety of general managers that sometimes people do leave for a variety of reasons, which makes it really difficult, particularly, to have quorums if you've got lower numbers. I do have some concerns with reducing the numbers. I certainly will support the bill into committee, and I'm really interested to hear further from other members, but I can understand the reasoning behind it and I can certainly understand the reason that you'd actually look at paying more. I can remember from my time on council, there are some councillors that work very hard, and there are some councillors that turn up on council meeting days.

I think that's the real problem that you've got, even for the smaller councils: how do you fairly compensate the ones that work really hard on the smaller councils? When I was looking at the amount that the smaller councils receive, they could work equally as hard as someone that turns up purely on a council day on a larger council. It really is a difficult matter to actually attribute fair pay. To me it is a real problem because I can recall, during my earlier times on council, when there was at least one councillor that would turn up and open the documents at the council table. Realistically, how do you attribute fair pay for someone, whether it be one of the smaller councils, Flinders, one of the smaller councillors who works really, really hard and doesn't earn anywhere near as much as someone in a larger council that feels it's okay just to turn up?

No reflection on any of the councils in my electorate, I think they're all great, but I'm just wondering about how fair it can be for some of the smaller councils. I know that just because you've got a small area doesn't mean you don't work hard. I think that's really important too, but I do appreciate the problem for the minister in trying to reflect fairness. I also received an email, and I think the Member for Nelson also received it, from a constituent of yours who is also a friend of mine, with regard to serious breach of code of conduct; we had concerns and requested a move to amend in the Committee stage section 18 to omit the proposed clause 28ZX - concerned that it would still leave a wide range of sanctions available to the tribunal, including removing a councillor from office. I do note that we have amendments on foot to address some of these issues.

This bill also establishes the architecture for improving the strategic capability and performance of councils over time. This puts community wellbeing at the centre of strategic planning and these aren't just pie in the sky concepts. Community wellbeing extends to every activity a council undertakes, including things like holding events, which goes to mental and social wellbeing; implementing cleanliness and beautification within municipalities and preventing and ameliorating pollution, which goes to environmental safety; keeping roads and footpaths safe and maintained, going to road safety and pedestrian accessibility; ensuring that pets and animals are being looked after responsibly - and many other things that are necessary to keep a municipality safe and ticking along. To this end, statutory requirements for councils to have community engagement strategies, which will be necessary because, ultimately, people need to be able to have a say over what's right for their communities and what will have the best outcome for their wellbeing.

This bill also empowers the minister to mandate clearer information around rates, ensuring ratepayers can better understand how their rates change over time. I'm not really sure that ratepayers care about understanding. I think they're more concerned about the amount they're paying. I think that that's something that is certainly difficult. I do have concerns with some of the mandatory requirements in the bill that ratepayers will be paying more to actually cover those extra costs because we all know where the councils are getting their money.

It prescribes an internal audit function for all councillors, bringing them into line with the standards expected of state government agencies, which will ensure council audit panels are also better supported. The government, as I understand it, has a road map prepared to ensure the measures in this bill will be properly implemented and, I do hope, funded.

From October 2026, local government elections will proceed under the new legislative framework for councillor numbers and allowances. The commencement of the new Serious Councillor Misconduct framework is in the pipeline, too. However, I'd like to get a more concrete understanding about the timeline expectations for this, Leader. Is it expected for these provisions to be in place for the incoming councils after the October 2026 elections?

There will be many changes to grapple with for the councillors who are elected in October 2026. I know that many who are councillors now support and have advocated for many of the changes contained in this bill and that there's an appetite and enthusiasm for a number of the changes this bill makes. I expect that, as with any suite of reform measures, there may be issues and challenges, but the community rightly has high expectations of their councils and I hope that this bill will progress that. As I said, the three councils that I have in my community - I'm very fortunate that we do have really good councillors. It's a little bit sad in some ways to think that, particularly in the case of Launceston, three of those councillors won't be coming back because everyone on the councils now performs very well and does a great job for their community. I do feel a little sad in that way that by passing the bill that we have before us, we're actually taking away some representation from people who are doing a really great job at the moment. I do have some concern. I will pass it into committee and listen to the extra contributions that are coming.