Resumed from 20 November 2025 (see p. 3775).

Hon. ALEAHY (Warrego—LNP) (Minister for Local Government and Water and Minister for Fire, Disaster Recovery and Volunteers) (5.14 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time.

The Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill proposes amendments to the City of Brisbane Act 2010, the Local Government Act 2009, the Local Government Electoral Act 2011 and associated regulations to deliver the Crisafulli government’s legislative reform agenda to empower councils and deliver for their communities. Our reform agenda is being delivered in a genuine partnership with the Local Government Association of Queensland and the local government sector in line with the Equal Partners in Government agreement. Since introducing the bill in November 2025, the government has progressed complementary amendments to the local government regulations. These were made on 12 December 2025 to further empower councils and mayors and cut red tape. Councils are already benefiting from these changes, including having the autonomy to decide how to dispose of non-current assets, including land, without state intervention.

I thank the Local Government, Small Business and Customer Service Committee for its examination of the bill and the stakeholders who took the time to make submissions to the committee, as well as those witnesses who appeared at the public hearings. The committee considered a range of evidence and I note that 68 submissions were received and public briefings and hearings were held. I am happy to inform the House that submitters expressed strong support for the provisions in the bill. The LGAQ, at the committee’s public hearing, thanked the government for listening to councils and noted that the bill addressed many issues that councils have been raising. The LGAQ stated— ... this bill represents an important step forward to modernise the legislative framework and address some critical priorities for Queensland councils.

Individual councils and councillors also expressed their support for the bill during the committee process. The Mackay Regional Council expressed its strong support of the intent and provisions of the bill, which it believed will enhance local government capability, reduce unnecessary regulatory burden and empower councils and mayors to better serve their communities. Similarly, the Whitsunday Regional Council highlighted that the bill contains measures that will materially improve local government capability and accountability. The Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council acknowledged that the bill is a significant step forward in realising the commitments under the Equal Partners in Government agreement and the Indigenous Council Leaders Accord. The Queensland councillor conduct watchdog, the Office of the Independent Assessor, and the body responsible for local government elections, the Electoral Commission of Queensland, also broadly support the intent of empowering councils and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden.

The committee tabled its report on 30 January 2026 and made one recommendation—that the bill be passed. I will address the detail of the committee’s comments in its report and I will outline key elements of the bill. I foreshadow that I will move amendments during consideration in detail of the bill to address issues raised by the stakeholders and considered by the committee during its inquiry. Amendments will also make essential technical changes to the local government employee superannuation arrangements to provide consistency with the Commonwealth’s payday super amendments coming into force in Julythis year. In addition, I will be moving amendments to theWorking with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000. These amendments are to facilitate greater sharing of information held by the Early Childhood Regulatory Authority with Blue Card Services.

The bill’s provisions will achieve a range of important objectives for the Crisafulli government. These are empowering councils; empowering mayors; improving the conflict-of-interest register and register of interests framework; reducing unnecessaryred tape and regulation; providing certaintyabout councillor remuneration, leave of absence, vacancies and eligibility; promoting good governance and

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation decision-making; enhancing safeguards for election participants; and making minor administrative and technical improvements. I will now turn to the detail of each of these objectives. The bill empowers councils by reinstating the role of councillors in the appointment of senior executive employees. Currently in councils other than the Brisbane City Council, appointments are made solely by the chief executive officer. The bill provides for local governments to use a panel for the appointment of senior executive employees comprising the CEO, the mayor and either the deputy mayor or relevant committee chairperson. The CEO will remain responsible for the management, direction and discipline of all local government employees, including senior executive employees.

I note submitters’ support for the proposed amendments, including from the Flinders Shire Council and the Whitsunday Regional Council. The opposition has contended that the amendments are unnecessary and that mayors and councillors may already be involved in appointment processes for senior executive employees. The key word here is ‘may’. Currently, the involvement of the mayor in these important appointments is entirely at the discretion of the CEO. The government considers, given the importance of the positions of senior executive employees in the functioning of councils, it is appropriate to prescribe that the mayor, the committee chairperson or deputy mayor be involved in the appointments to those positions. This reflects the unique position of the mayor, who is directly elected to the position to serve the whole council area, and there is a community expectation that the mayor would automatically be involved in the strategic directions of the council, including the appointment of key senior officers of the council.

The committee acknowledged the concerns raised by some submitters about the practical operation of the proposed panels and possible integrity issues. The committee referred in its report to the safeguards already in place to ensure councillors perform their roles in an honest, impartial and transparent manner. For example, councillors must comply with local government principles including ensuring transparent and effective processes in decision-making in the public interest. Their behaviour must be ethical and legal. Several elements of the Councillor Conduct Framework will also continue to require councillors to fulfil their appointment panel responsibilities with honesty and integrity. My department will work closely with the sector to implement the proposed framework, including in the development of training and guidance materials. Brisbane City Council already appoints its senior executive employees. The bill re-empowers councillors at the Brisbane City Council to appoint senior contract employees, including at general manager level. The CEO will appoint all other employees.

The bill amends the requirement around council’s access to state owned quarry material, providing flexibility for councils according to their circumstances. State owned quarry material is the only source of material for many councils, particularly in western and northern Queensland, making it crucial for effective and efficient council operations. It is proposed that a reasonable entry notice be given to the owner and occupier of the relevant land within a reasonable period before entry, rather than at least seven days before entry as currently required. I am pleased to inform the House that submitters, including the LGAQ, were very supportive of the proposal to clarify reasonable entry notices and the timing under legislation. Some submitters raised the importance of developing template notices and best practice materials to support the implementation of the proposed amendments. To address these issues, the department will be updating existing guidance on the use of the relevant provision in the legislation to reflect the amendments in the bill.

The bill provides a framework to enable Queensland’s 14 local governments—as well as the Aurukun Shire Council and the Mornington Shire Council—to rate in future if circumstances are favourable. These local governments have been prevented from rating because most of the land in each of their areas has historically been held by the local government in trust and is therefore not rateable. While the amendments in the bill do not change the current policy position that these councils must not rate, they create the flexibility for the future, if it is considered practical for any of these affected councils to commence rating. This is achieved through a regulation-making power. I am pleased to note the support from stakeholders for the proposal to clarify rating powers, with the Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council submitting that these reforms speak directly to the commitments made under the Equal Partners in Government agreement.

I now turn to the amendments about mayoral responsibilities. The bill amends the Local Government Act 2009 to provide that the mayor’s responsibilities include being the official spokesperson of the local government. This does not prevent other councillors from communicating with the community about local government matters, other than as the official spokesperson. Submitters to the committee inquiry, including the LGAQ, Local Government Managers Australia, individual councils and mayors supported the proposed amendments. In response to issues of concern raised by stakeholders, I am happy to confirm that mayors will still have the discretion to delegate the role of

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation council spokesperson to other councillors via their existing delegation power. This should allow for the tailoring of spokesperson arrangements, including media policies, to individual council circumstances. The bill also provides that mayors are responsible for leading and managing council meetings as the chairperson and any committee meetings for which they are chairperson.

I will now turn to the conflict-of-interest framework. In summary, the bill repeals the current conflict-of-interest framework which is based on the concepts of ‘prescribed conflict of interest’ and ‘declarable conflict of interest’. It reinstates the concepts of ‘material personal interest’ and ‘conflict of interest’. It retains current exemptions requested by stakeholders in recent years—for example, small value gifts and hospitality. The bill also updates the framework for dealing with breaches. The penalty for material personal interest breaches, where a councillor intends to gain a benefit or avoid a loss for themselves or someone else, will be 200 penalty units, or two years imprisonment. Other material personal interest breaches and all conflict-of-interest breaches will be treated as misconduct under the Councillor Conduct Framework. The proposed changes will have a focus on local government meetings. They remove the requirement for non-conflicted councillors to vote on whether to allow a conflicted councillor to participate in decision-making. Importantly, they remove the duty on a councillor to report a belief or a suspicion of another councillor’s conflict.

The Crisafulli government understands that these requirements have been longstanding concerns for many councils. The amendments also remove the concept of a close personal relationship with a councillor from the conflict-of-interest arrangements. I acknowledge the range of views about the changes to the conflict-of-interest framework, as expressed to the committee. After listening carefully to the sector concerns, including individual councillors, the Crisafulli government considers that the proposed framework strikes a better balance between allowing councillors to get on with the job for which they were elected and ensuring transparency and accountability. The proposed framework is designed to ensure councillors manage conflicts of interest between their private interests and public duties, backed by significant penalties for councillors who breach the trust placed in them by their communities. They put the onus on councillors to take appropriate action and recognise that other councillors are not necessarily better placed than the councillor themselves to determine if they can act in the public interest. The amendments in the bill will remove unnecessary red tape to allow conflicts to be managed faster and will depoliticise the management of conflicts.

I note that the committee supported the proposed new framework in its report on the bill. While some submitters raised additional concerns, including about managing conflicts outside council meetings, the committee agreed that placing the onus on individual councillors strikes a more appropriate balance than the current framework. I can confirm that my department will be developing a comprehensive suite of training and guidance materials to support the new framework, in consultation with the sector.

The committee acknowledged the concerns raised about the removal of the ‘close personal relationship’ test from the definition of ‘related party’ whilst noting advice from the department that it would consider further amendments to the definition. We have listened to these concerns and I will move a minor amendment to the definition of ‘related party’ to include a regulation-making power. This will ensure flexibility and consistency with the definition of `associate’ for the purposes of the material personal interest provisions. The bill amends the requirements around a councillor’s register of interests to ensure consistency with the conflict-of-interest reforms. The committee noted advice from the department that the revised arrangements appropriately balance integrity and accountability considerations with administrative simplicity, reflecting the Crisafulli government’s policy.

The bill includes a range of amendments to remove unnecessary red tape and regulation. To streamline the procurement processes during disaster events, the bill provides the minister with the power to issue a general approval to a council, or multiple councils, to make major policy decisions to progress recovery works during the caretaker period for local government elections. I am pleased to note stakeholder support for the proposals, with the LGAQ stating that they will greatly reduce administrative burden and ensure urgent works can be progressed without waiting for unnecessarily bureaucratic procedural approvals.

An important measure in the bill removes the conduct breach category from the councillor conduct framework. Feedback from the sector was that it is open to misuse on political and personal grounds, has led to unwarranted reputational harm, has significant cost implications and is a disproportionate way of dealing with lower-level behavioural issues. Generally, conduct breaches include conduct that contravenes a behavioural standard or a local government policy, procedure or resolution. Conduct breaches, if proven, do not attract substantial penalties—usually a reprimand or an order for an apology or to undertake training. It is arguable that this approach does not act as a deterrent

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation to future poor behaviour. While the number of conduct breach allegations is relatively low, with a large number dismissed at the assessment stage, the time and resources that local governments expend investigating the allegations and reporting on the allegations can be significant. Ultimately this comes at a cost to ratepayers. The chairperson of local government meetings will still have the power to mediate the poor behaviour of councillors in meetings. The councillor conduct framework will also continue to address councillors’ suspected misconduct and corrupt conduct.

The bill amends the definition of misconduct to capture the more serious types of councillor conduct. These amendments provide that the following conduct is misconduct: bullying, sexual harassment and failing to comply with an order of the chairperson of the meeting to leave and stay away from the place at which the meeting is being held. Support for the proposal, including from the LGMA and councils, highlighted that removing conduct breaches would streamline the system by focusing the formal complaints process on serious misconduct. Support for the proposal also noted that prompt internal handling of matters that fall below the misconduct threshold can build cohesion and demonstrate commitment to acceptable behaviours. I am pleased to note the committee’s comment that it supported the removal of conduct breaches from the councillor conduct framework.

While some submitters raised concerns about how to deal with inappropriate behaviour that falls outside the bill’s definitions for unsuitable meeting conduct, misconduct or corrupt conduct, the committee outlined that there are other available avenues to deal with more minor infractions such as public council meetings. Further, the committee noted the department’s intention to develop training and guidance materials in relation to the proposed removal of conduct breaches from the councillor conduct framework and encouraged the department to work closely with the sector on this. The bill further streamlines the conduct framework by removing duplication of reporting requirements.

Turning to the training improvements, the bill streamlines training requirements currentlyapplying to all election candidates and all councillors. The bill empowers incumbent councillors by only requiring new election candidates to complete mandatory candidate training. Sitting councillors who are nominating for re-election, and who would have completed the candidate training previously, would not be required to complete the training again. On being elected, all councillors are currently required to complete training about their responsibilities under the legislation. The bill empowers returning councillors by only requiring new councillors to complete mandatory training on the prescribed topics in the period after the election.

It is important to note that the training will still be available and the proposed changes do not prevent councillors from completing it or seeking advice from the department or the Electoral Commission of Queensland about their obligations. I am pleased to inform the House that the committee supported the proposed changes to mandatory training requirements for councillors and encouraged the department to work closely with the sector in the development of any new training materials, including reviewing material in accordance with sector feedback.

I will move minor amendments in consideration in detail to provide for transitional arrangements for the candidate training amendments. The bill also makes a range of amendments in relation to electoral processes, including the process for reviewing wards, divisions and councillors before quadrennial elections. I am pleased to note stakeholder support for these proposed changes. The bill also streamlines the process for postal ballot applications to allow councils to apply directly to the Electoral Commissioner for a recommendation, rather than requiring an application for a direction to first be made to the minister. The government will move minor amendments to the bill to provide for transitional arrangements for the postal ballot amendments.

In further red-tape reduction reforms the bill removes the power to make regulations in relation to the functions of council advisers. It also abolishes the requirement for councils to provide the minister with a copy of a public benefit assessment report when a council conducts a public benefit assessment for a new significant business activity. The bill provides clarity on a range of matters concerning councillor remuneration, leaves of absence, vacancy of office and eligibility. The bill provides certainty to councillors on when they are entitled to begin and end receiving remuneration. It also clarifies that a councillor, other than a Brisbane City Council councillor, is entitled to their remuneration when absent from council, including during leaves of absence.

Turning to the amendments about vacancy and eligibility, the bill provides that a councillor who is elected or appointed to fill a mayoral vacancy is taken to vacate the office of a councillor when they commence in the mayoral role. It is not intended that a councillor hold both offices. The committee highlighted stakeholder support for the amendment, noting that this closes a legislative gap and ensures vacancies are promptlyfilled. The bill makes amendments which automaticallyremove a councillor from

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation office upon nomination as a candidate for election as a member of the Legislative Assembly. The committee canvassed a range of stakeholder views on this amendment, including the LGAQ. The committee noted the benefits identified by stakeholders, including transparency, accountability, stability and clarity for local communities and the principle that councillors should remain fully committed to serving their communities during their term. Having considered the submissions, the committee supported the proposal. While noting that some submitters raised concerns, the committee considered that the changes proposed in the bill offer communities certainty.

To promote good governance and decision-making in local government, the bill prevents the disclosure of unauthorised information and documents to councillors. The amendments implement an Ethics Committee recommendation by providing that the power for councillors to request information from the CEO does not apply to information or a document that comprises proceedings in the Assembly, as defined in section 9 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. The bill also includes important amendments affecting the Brisbane City Council’s Establishment and Coordination Committee. The bill amends section 171 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 to provide that the power to request assistance or information applies to a councillor in relation to defined ‘committee information’ only if the councillor is a member of Civic Cabinet. If the councillor is not a member of Civic Cabinet section 171 applies only to the extent the ‘committee information’ relates to a matter that has been finally resolved. The bill amends section 172 of the act in the same way, with respect to the inspection of records containing committee information. Brisbane City Council supported the proposal; however, its submission to the parliamentary committee identified concerns with the proposed definition of ‘committee information’. The committee report notes advice from the department that these issues were under consideration. I am happy to confirm that I will move amendments to the bill to address the concerns raised by Brisbane City Council.

The bill addresses safetyand privacyissues for participants in council elections, to allayconcerns about public disclosure of full residential addresses in compliance with the Local Government Electoral Act 2011. The bill removes the requirement for a person who authorises an advertisement, handbill, pamphlet or notice to include a full street address. Instead, a candidate or participant will be given the option of including other contact information—for example, a PO box. Similar amendments are made in relation to how-to-vote cards. In response to technical issues raised by the ECQ, the government will move amendments during consideration in detail to provide transitional arrangements for these amendments.

I conclude by reiterating the important drivers for these reforms: to create an environment where the local government sector is empowered, through fit-for-purpose legislation, to ensure local government is held to high levels of integrity and accountability; and to enable councillors to serve their community without unnecessary regulatory burden. If the bill is passed, my department will move to the implementation phase of these reforms, noting that while most of the amendments commence on assent a number will commence at proclamation. These are the removal of conduct breaches and the new conflicts-of-interest and register-of-interests framework, and we have provided for a staged commencement of some of the reforms to enable supporting information, training and guidance material to be prepared in collaboration with the sector. A new code of conduct for councils and model meeting procedures will reflect the removal of the conduct breaches from the councillor conduct framework. Complementary regulation amendments will also be proposed to progress to Governor in Council, with the proclamation to commence for remaining provisions.

Once again, I thank the Local Government, Small Business and Customer Service Committee for its examination of the bill and all stakeholders who contributed to the development of the bill, in particular the Brisbane City Council, the Local Government Association of Queensland, Local Government Managers Australia, the Office of the Independent Assessor, the Electoral Commission of Queensland and the Local Government Remuneration Commission. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms BOYD (Pine Rivers—ALP) (5.40 pm): When you have a talented minister like this, it is little wonder the debate has been guillotined. How many amendments is the minister moving and why on earth are they not already circulated? That was a selective and sheltered contribution from the member. The minister talks about committee support and committee agreement, but I remind her that they have the numbers on the committee. If she flicks to the back of the report she will see a statement of reservation. There was not committee support and there was not committee agreement, let alone stakeholder agreement, for a lot of the provisions within this bill.

I am often asked what I love most about working with our local governments. When you get our 77 councils in a room, you appreciate what an eclectic bunch they are—full of different ideas, ambitions, views on the world and perspectives. They do not want much from a state government: reliable funding streams, workable frameworks and the confidence that they can do their jobs to deliver for their beloved communities. Last year this Premier went to the LGAQ annual conference and outlined a suite of legislative reforms, made promises, gave assurances and made plenty of remarks of a hollow and slippery nature. Many councillors have been around the block more than once and they know that, with a politician as clever as the Premier, it always pays to take notice of what he does not say rather than what he does. The room was abuzz when they noticed what he did not say.

The Minister for Local Government commenced consultation on this bill in May 2025, and history has shown that many key reforms proposed by the bill have been unsupported by the sector in whole or in part. What is more, this government attempted to hoodwink the sector with its proposed restrictive and undemocratic resign-to-run clauses. It became clear that the LGAQ policy executive would not and could not accept this. The Premier and minister then intentionally omitted that from public announcements, including media statements, on this legislation, only to sneak them in through the back door. This is a government that will not stand up for their convictions but will use subterfuge to ram home their ideological agenda.

So unsure of what they actually stand for, their very first piece of legislation in this place for the local government sector is to wind back the Premier’s own policy. On any other day and under any other circumstances, I would be pretty unforgiving of that. Times can change and with evolution there needs to be flexibility—an ability to bend and be responsive to problems and the need to address them. However, let us not fool ourselves: that is not what is happening here. The Premier and the minister have snuck provisions into this bill requiring a councillor to resign their position if they nominate for state parliament. Their resign-to-run provisions were rejected by the sector during consultation, and the Premier and the minister knew that. They proceeded to deceive the sector and sneak them through in this bill despite knowing full well that the local government sector vehemently opposes them. These bad actors went so far in their attempts to blindside the LGAQ around the need for councillors to resign to run that the LGAQ needed to run a ballot of their members to be assured of a policy position because they did not have a current one. Why? Because this matter was not a policy priority for the sector!

This proposal has been ruled out of the question by the policy executive. Through consultation, the minister knew that. When the LGAQ finally called out this deception, they did not hold back. The discredited minister continued to lobby. Despite calls, ultimatums and all-or-nothing threats, the LGAQ maintained its position and then it got done over. This government brags about an equal partnership in local government and yet the additional submission from the peak body was quick to detail the multiple clauses that the Premier and the minister had violated in their dishonesty.

The LGAQ submitted that `resign to run’ is a retrograde step. They issued a call for us not to support this. Why? Because it is contradictory to the words and the sentiment of the Equal Partners in Government agreement. Specifically, it does not align with the following clauses: 3.1, ‘Local government should be empowered to serve their community, including through fit for purpose legislation, whilst being held to high levels of integrity and accountability’; 3.4, ‘Local Government will be subject to minimum intervention from the Queensland Government in respect of its legitimate interests and jurisdictional responsibilities (including but not limited to revenue raising, local laws and land use planning)’; and further under 3.4, and this is the best of them all, ‘The Queensland Government interest will only be exercised where legitimate State interests exist.’ That really bells the cat.

This minister and the Premier have come close to hoarse with their bragging that the local government sector has never had it so good and that now they have an equal partner in government. They do not have an equal partner; they have an unfaithful partner. The LNP is a partner that knows full well that this is a nonsense proposal. This LNP government is coercively abusing them to sandbag itself. This kind of behaviour goes beyond the gaslighting that is common bad practice from the government; it is escalated to utter disrespect and abuse.

Let us wind the clock back to 2012. Reading through historic Hansard is not a pastime of mine, but I did so in my preparatory research. I was taken back to the future as what I read contained the same old formulaic method, altered rhetoric and slogans of the now Premier when he introduced his first bill as local government minister. There was one glaringly obvious difference, which was the glorious backflip on the resign-to-run provisions. On 13 November 2012 the now Premier declared— The removal of the legislative requirement for councillors to automatically vacate office when nominating for state parliament will result in the removal—

Government members interjected.

Ms BOYD: These are the Premier’s words— of the need to conduct costly by-elections where that councillor is not successful in being elected to state parliament. Two ears, one mouth! He continued— The cost of conducting a by-election is a significant burden for councils which can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. He is not wrong. The current-day price tag on a by-election is around half a million dollars, as seen recently in Mackay and Townsville, and upwards of $20,000, which is really significant, for a very small council like Balonne.

When you skip back to that 2012 debate when the LNP changed the legislation so that a councillor could run for parliament and maintain their position in council, one of the staunchest voices of support for the current-day model was the former member for Warrego. He said, ‘... they wanted to reduce the odds of losing the next election.’ In other words, they rorted the system. What on earth changed in the minds of the Premier and those advising former members, such as the current member for Warrego? What is the LNP’s motivation for this change?

This provision, since 2012, has seen members come into this House like the current federal member for Hinkler, the member for Lockyer and the member for Gympie. Twenty-one councillors have contested elections in the almost 41 years since the then Premier made these changes. Eleven were successful; 10 were unsuccessful. Imagine having 10 additional by-election expenses shouldered by ratepayers and councils in a local community.

The Premier is on the parliamentary record, calling this now policy a ‘significant burden’. The member the current minister was working for at the time called it a ‘system’s rort’. The Premier has called this now policy ‘ridiculous’. How on earth did we end up here with subterfuge for the sector, trashing the Equal Partners in Government agreement? The balloting of the LGAQ on this matter came back vehemently opposed to the change. There has been no sensible reason provided demonstrating that change is needed: no documented instances of harm, misconduct or governance failure; not a single integrity investigation, court decision or CCC finding that recommended automatic resignation or nomination; not a single person able to articulate why the Premier or minister has taken this action in such a deceptive, scurrilous method, misleading the sector and putting the legislation through in peak disaster season. How fitting! This is a proof point of how the government only cares about politics and not about governing Queensland. It demonstrates that they are only in it for themselves, not the local government sector. The politics of self-survival is held above all else under the Crisafulli government.

I want to turn my focus to the ineptitude in the timing of this bill. In May 2025, consultation commenced. In October 2025, the deceptive announcement was made, but the bill’s introduction lingered, leaving the committee’s examination of this bill until peak disaster season. It is little wonder that the committee did not complete any travel across our vast state. There was minimal time spent in public hearings. Key stakeholders like the Crime and Corruption Commission did not appear before the committee. Sixty-eight submissions were received by the committee. Only two hours and 40 minutes were allotted to hear from the stakeholders and 90 minutes afforded to the department.

This is a comprehensive bill that contains 318 amendments, omissions and/or insertions. It was clear that more time was genuinely needed to properly examine the bill. Not only was that not afforded through the committee process, but what we see when we get here to this House is a total gag and guillotine in relation to this bill. We only have a matter of hours before this debate will finish and the minister is still yet to table any amendments, despite listing off a varied raft of them that extend beyond the local government portfolio.

Mr Whiting interjected.

Ms BOYD: I take the interjection. This record indicates what consideration this holds for the government. It became clear through the process that many stakeholders were at a loss as to why there was even a need for many of these reforms. Indeed, reflecting respectfully, the department was also failing in this category, resulting to the default of government policy in many rationales for change—not because change was required, not because the sector had asked for it, but because the LNP government knew better. I want to acknowledge the committee staff and the many members of this parliament who supported the interrogation of this bill.

I also want to acknowledge that it has been a bumpy decade for the local government sector. The sector’s operating framework for integrity, conflicts and conduct for a large part was drafted by an external, independent body. It was imperfect. I want to be really clear on that. It is important to acknowledge this. Our Labor team acknowledges this.

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation

As a result of those unique frameworks, past parliaments worked in a bipartisan way to make improvements, to genuinely listen and understand and to make recommendations that were suited and supported. I cannot help but feel sorrow that for so many of us—many MPs, former councillors, former local government ministers who love and respect the role that local government plays and the good people who give so much of themselves to it; I feel sorry knowing what we know—this is the best the LNP can afford the sector. This bill claims to empower councils, but in practice it weakens integrity, transparency and accountability across the local government sector.

This bill, through committee, has been torn to shreds by the CCC, the OIA and the LGAQ on so many essential provisions. This committee report offered up no recommendations or improvements for change. I sat through every second of its deliberations and there were plenty of opportunities for improvement on the drafting. Even if the government did not shift on the policy elements of this bill, the drafting was identified as unworkable and, in some cases, dangerous.

We have come from a place, from a lightning rod for change, to a bipartisan group toiling to listen and to act cooperatively to build a fairer, stronger, more robust system in this place to this ‘fresh start’ which seemingly sees it all torn up and a match thrown on it. All of the corruption-fighting experts are telling us that this framework is fraught with corruption risks. How can this minister, Premier and government turn a blind eye to those voices?

The OIA went as far as to write and rewrite clauses that have legal standing. The CCC stated the bill would wind back some of the significant integrity and transparency measures. This would sound alarm bells for most. This bill will increase corruption and integrity risks and wind back governance protections, and I fear for the local government leaders who will be its collateral damage.

Our local government sector deserves better. They work in complex operating environments across our state, each LGA with diverse challenges, unique compositions and immense opportunity. Our state is home to some of the nation’s largest councils and some of the nation’s most unique. This is the reason that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work in so many policy settings.

One of the common claims that came forward in response to concerns around the readiness to implement many components of this bill is that there would be training and guidance materials developed and rolled out, and today the minister spoke about the materials as if they were in a future text, as if the work had not started, had not been completed, as if it was a mystery as to what would happen here in this place. Given we are here debating this bill right now, it is timely to hear from the government what material is developed and what the plan is to implement its rollout. I know the sector absolutely wants to know. Table that here in the House. At least be up-front about that.

It is wild that right now we have many amendments that the minister just foreshadowed—did not put a numeral on them at all. We are not exactly sure how many, and we are not sure exactly what the nature of them is, but we have this truncated debate where this will get passed tonight and we are still none the wiser what this government is actually proposing. So much for openness and transparency! It is essential that the sector has the confidence and the knowledge to be able to navigate new and different frameworks, and it would only be responsible for the government to detail that and to come good on finally being transparent with this bill.

Government members interjected.

Ms BOYD: I hear lots of interjections from those opposite. If only they were afforded the opportunity to speak on this bill, but once again the backbench has been gagged.

When it comes to conduct breaches, the goose really got cooked with intertwining statutory frameworks. Further, the misconduct provisions in relation to ‘honest and impartial’ rather than ‘honest or impartial’ cause confusion, needing both elements rather than either.

The abolition of the conduct breaches leaves serious behavioural issues and breaches of council policy without any clear enforcement pathway. Their response of, ‘Oh, well, the community will have their say at the ballot box,’ does not actually pass the pub test. Integrity and trust in public life matters. There is a standard that we all want to uphold and protect when we enter public life. There needs to be a workable framework to support that. In no other job would it be okay to be intoxicated while representing your employer at an event, misuse your employer’s resources or be threatening or aggressive to people in the workplace and get off scot-free. Frameworks are there to maintain acceptable standards, confidence and community trust. This bill erodes that.

Corruption risks are reduced when everyone looks out for one another. Mayor Samantha O’Toole from Balonne Shire Council provided evidence in her public hearing of instances in the council chamber where councillors supported each other with conflict-of-interest reminders, given their positive duty in

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation this space. It is a framework that works well when constructively used. It prevents oversights from becoming problems for councillors. Mud sticks, and in public life perception is just as damaging, and sometimes more damaging, than reality. It is a risk in our operating environment. The winding back of a corruption safety net is not a good thing. It was established because of integrity failings and real corruption risks. How will the Crisafulli government monitor this? It all remains to be seen.

Decisions are not made around a council table. They are not limited to formal meetings. I know very few councillors who head into a formal council meeting undecided on how to vote on a matter. How is it then okay to prohibit councillors with conflicts of interest from speaking up inside the chamber but okay for them to lobby colleagues until the cows come home in workshops or informal discussions without any kind of warning? The LGMA talked about the real dangers in this retrograde step.

The civic cabinet restrictions made through this bill on the Brisbane City Council limit democracy and information sharing and silence voices in decision-making. They wind back transparency and accountability. One wonders whether it is simply another LNP clause in this legislation that is focused on politics, not people.

The content experts are saying in relation to multiple elements of this bill that the provisions will not work, that this takes us backwards and that this reduces, not enhances. I am deeply disappointed that so many strong expert positions on matters were rejected outright without reason. We learned through the committee that this minister had extensive expert feedback on improvements to protections and they have been seemingly rejected. One is left to wonder if this is a start-as-you-mean-to-go-on situation. This is only the start of legislative reform in local government, and it distinctly feels like a death rattle.

We had such considered and detailed contributions through the committee process, but it is regrettable that so few people were afforded the ability to come before the committee in a public setting. I thank those people who took the time to make submissions. Their effort and the detail were beneficial, and that detail will remain on the public record of how collaborative and earnest bipartisanship had the potential to deliver something better and more secure for the sector.

The timing afforded to this debate demonstrates the LNP government’s disdain and disregard of the local government sector. We are still waiting for the amendments. I have talked for 23 minutes and the minister still has not tabled them. We will not have time to afford them proper consideration. This is terrible governance. No-one in the local government sector will benefit from this kind of terrible governance. This minister should do better, and the sector deserves that.

It is essential that we work in good faith with the local government sector to promote, enhance and improve governance and practice. This is an awful standard to set. She should be ashamed. We build trust and confidence and uphold integrity. That is our job. This bill is a missed opportunity in so many respects. It is a crying shame. It speaks to the disregard this minister and this government have for the sector. To them I say: do better.

Mr LISTER(Southern Downs—LNP) (6.05 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I do so both as chair of the Local Government, Small Business and Customer Service Committee, which considered the bill, and as an MP who has been elected to serve the people of Southern Downs, which is a large country electorate that very much relies on the work of our local councils.

I am completely floored by the sanctimonious, censorious, carping contribution we just heard. The first thing that springs to mind is the pot is calling the kettle black. That side of the House has given us insights about this backbench all week—we have heard about some rebellion here—but we just passed the last bill with everybody onside. The Labor Party, with its iron grip, though, would seem unable to command a majority of all of its members. There we go.

I heard corruption being mentioned. There is talk about corruption and then there is action. The last speaker was the local government minister for 200 days during the Troy Thompson matter. Let’s have a look at that.

Ms BOYD: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Not only was I never the local government minister; I find the comments personally offensive and ask they be withdrawn.

Mr LISTER: I withdraw.

Ms Boyd: Get your facts straight.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Marr): Member for Pine Rivers!

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation

Mr LISTER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I take personal offence at that interjection and ask that the member withdraw.

Ms BOYD: I withdraw.

Mr LISTER: My electorate of Southern Downs is covered by three local government authorities: the Southern Downs, Goondiwindi and Toowoomba regional councils. To us, they are not some distant administrative layer domiciled in Brisbane. They are the council grader fixing a road after a storm and the payer of the bounty when you have shot a wild dog on your property that would otherwise kill your lambs. The honourable primary industries minister and many others in this chamber know what I am talking about. It is the councillor who gets the call about a draft planning scheme complaint, the need to repair a flood damaged culvert or a neighbour who has just opened an unauthorised dog kennel next door.

In places like the Southern Downs, Goondiwindi and the Granite Belt, councils are very much part of the day-to-day life of the community. For that reason, legislation affecting local government needs to strike the right balance. We need proper integrity protections—of course we do. These must also ensure the framework within which councils operate is practical, workable and respectful of the fact that local councils are elected bodies.

Over time, however, the legislative framework governing local government in Queensland has become increasingly complex. There have been layers added that have made it harder for councils to simply get on with the job that they were elected to do. I would not be the only person in my electorate of Southern Downs who fervently holds the view that it was Labor’s stewardship of local government over many years which has diminished the role of councillors and that it was done so with the deliberate aim of nobbling a councillor so they may not be in a position to challenge the way local government has been mishandled.

The local governments in my neck of the woods have not forgotten the forced amalgamations imposed upon them by the Labor Party. My communities have not forgotten this. Soft soap and weasel words in this chamber criticising this bill wash away very quickly when compared with the history.

This bill seeks to restore a measure of balance and common sense to that framework. One of the most significant elements of the bill relates to the appointment of council chief executive officers and other senior staff. Councils are responsible for running substantial organisations. Some of them employ hundreds of people and manage budgets worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It is appropriate, therefore, that elected councillors have a meaningful role in selecting senior staff who will lead the organisation.

The reforms in this bill restore the role of councillors in appointment panels. In myview that simply recognises the democratic mandate of the elected council. I found it fascinating that the Local Government Association and the Local Government Managers entertained concerns about sharing that power with elected councillors. I was very entertained by the contribution of one of the people who came before us—Rob Hayward, the CEO of the Maranoa Regional Council. I put it to him that surely the idea that these appointments occur in a vacuum now and that there is no political interference whatsoever—no influence whatsoever—is a fallacy. In the typical Western Queensland style—and I am sure the Minister for Local Government would agree with me that the further west you go the more straight talking people get—he readily agreed with me. He said, ‘I have been in local government for a very long time and that is exactly what happens.’ The point is that we need to have a framework which acknowledges the natural tendencies and indeed the political rights of those who are elected as councillors to have input into these appointments.

Another important element of this bill is the clarification of the leadership of the mayor. In Queensland’s system of local government the mayor is elected directly by the community. That office carries with it an expectation of leadership. The bill clarifies that the mayor is the official spokesperson for the council and ordinarily presides over meetings of the council. These provisions are not revolutionary. In many ways they restore arrangements that most people would assume were already the case. Clarity in legislation matters. It ensures councils operate with a clear understanding of responsibilities and authority which ultimatelyhelps them function more effectively. It was veryrevealing to hear from the Mayor of Ipswich City, Councillor Teresa Harding. She gave some very vivid testimony about the attempts to undermine her leadership of the council—most extraordinary things like trying to stop her from chairing meetings and stop her from being able to speak on behalf of the council. These are things which Queenslanders would see as unnatural, I think. This deals with that particular problem—a problem left to us by the Labor Party.

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation

The bill also revisits the conflict-of-interest framework applying to councillors. Members of the House will recall that a number of changes were made to that framework some years ago. Those changes were ostensibly made with the intention of strengthening integrity, but the feedback from the sector has been that the rules became unnecessarily complex and, in some cases, confusing. I think this again is a vindication of my assumption that Labor was content to diminish the role of councillors— keep them tied up, keep them fighting with one another, keep them defending themselves.

This bill restores the earlier framework dealing with material personal interests and conflicts of interest. That framework is well understood and provides clear guidance to councillors about when they must declare an interest and step aside from a decision. Importantly, it also recognises the reality of life in country communities. It is not easy for everybody to distance themselves entirely from other interests, because in a small community councillors invariably are also the secretary of this, the chair of that and on the board of that because they are the sort of people who step up in leadership roles in their communities. In smaller towns it is almost impossible for councillors not to have some connection— whether through community organisations, business relationships or family networks—with matters that come before the council. The legislation needs to recognise that reality while still protecting integrity of council in decision-making.

Another theme running through the bill is the reduction of unnecessary red tape. These are provisions removing duplicative reporting requirements, simplifying administrative processes and clarifying a number of technical matters that have caused confusion in the past. These may not be the headline-grabbing aspects of the bill but they are nevertheless very important. Anyone who has worked in or around local government will know that small administrative burdens can accumulate very quickly. They slow council’s responsiveness to community demands and they take up staff time and resources that could be better spent delivering services to the community.

The bill also contains provisions dealing with matters such as councillor remuneration arrangements, leave of absence, vacancies and eligibility requirements. These are the sorts of issues that may not attract much public attention until something goes wrong. Having clear rules in legislation ensures consistency across the state and avoids unnecessary disputes about procedure.

The bill includes amendments relevant to Indigenous local governments, clarifying rating powers and establishing a framework that will allow those councils to implement a rating structure if theychoose to do so. Financial sustainability is a challenge for many councils, particularly those in remote areas. These amendments provide greater flexibility for Indigenous councils to strengthen their financial base while respecting the unique circumstances in which they operate.

There are also some practical changes affecting Brisbane City Council, including acknowledging its budget adoption timetable to align more closely with other councils in Queensland. Again, this is a practical measure that promotes consistency and administrative efficiency.

When we talk about empowering councils what we are really talking about is trusting local democracy. The people of Queensland elect councillors and mayors to make decisions about their communities. They expect those representatives to be truthful, to exercise judgement, to listen to their concerns and to act in good faith to advance the interests of their communities. I believe that the best restraining force upon misbehaviour and deceit by councillors is the prospect of electoral defeat at the hands of an informed electorate. Our job as legislators is to provide the framework to support councils. This bill serves that end. I commend the bill to the House.

(Time expired)

Mr HEALY(Cairns—ALP) (6.15 pm): The Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 has been promoted by the Crisafulli government as a measure to ‘empower councils’. In substance, however, it represents a retreat from the integrity safeguards that have underpinned Queensland local government since the reforms that followed the Crime and Corruption Commission’s Operation Belcarra inquiry.

At a time of intense development pressure, fragile public trust and escalating land values, the bill weakens conflict-of-interest rules, narrows transparency requirements and concentrates authority in ways that increase systemic risk. Local government in Queensland exercises substantial influence over planning approvals, rezoning infrastructure agreements, procurement and major public works. In a housing-constrained market, a single development approval can shift millions of dollars in value. For communities, these same decisions shape neighbourhood character, environmental protection, flood resilience, infrastructure capacity and long-term livability. Integrity in council decision-making is therefore not procedural formality; it is absolutely foundational to equitable and sustainable development.

Operation Belcarra exposed vulnerabilities in how councillors managed conflicts and how relationships with property developers could erode confidence in local democracies. The reforms that followed embedded peer review of conflicts, strengthened reporting obligations, enhanced registers of interests and reinforced independent oversight which the community thought was important. These measures were designed not only to prevent misconduct but also to protect councillors and ensure decisions were demonstrably fair.

This bill begins to dismantle those guardrails. It abolishes peer determination of conflicts, removing the requirement for non-conflicted councillors to assess whether a colleague should participate in deliberations. It narrows the definition of reportable interests, shortens disclosure timeframes and removes ‘close personal relationships’ as a trigger for declaration. It permits conflicted councillors to influence matters outside of formal meetings. It tightens, rather than broadens, interest registers. Each change may be characterised as administrative streamlining. Collectively they dilute transparency and weaken oversight in precisely those areas most vulnerable to undue influence.

Mr Dillon interjected.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Marr): Member for Gregory, you have had a pretty good go back there.

Mr HEALY: The broader political context intensifies concern. The government has signalled support for permitting development sector donations at the state level. Political donations are lawful, but they carry inevitable perceptions of access and alignment. State governments shape planning frameworks, infrastructure funding and legislative settings that directly affect local decision-making. Councils depend on state approvals and financial support. If councillor-level safeguards are simultaneously reduced, the structural risk becomes clear: influence established through state-level relationships mayflow directly or indirectly into local planning environments where conflict controls have been relaxed.

This is not speculative. Complaints about local government conduct in Queensland have frequently centred on development, rezoning and procurement areas involving significant financial stakes. Robust governance frameworks manage these pressures through transparency and collective scrutiny. Weakened frameworks expand the opportunity for vulnerabilities. When communities suspect that approvals may reflect financial relationships or political access rather than planning merit, confidence in local democracy deteriorates. Once eroded trust is difficult to rebuild, as some already know.

Queensland deliberately strengthened its local government integrity framework after serious weaknesses were exposed. This legislation reopens many of those vulnerabilities. At a moment when development decisions carry profound economic, environmental and social consequences, the state should be fortifying safeguards, not relaxing them. If empowerment is the objective, it should be achieved by enhancing transparency, probity and collective oversight, definitely not by reducing them.

Mr BAILLIE (Townsville—LNP) (6.20 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, and I speak in support of this bill. I thank the minister for introducing the bill and the committee chair for his leadership during the committee process as well as all of the committee members, the secretariat and everyone who supported the process, including stakeholders who provided evidence.

The Crisafulli government is delivering major reforms for the local government sector with fit-for-purpose legislation. The overarching policy objectives of this bill are to: empower councils and mayors; improve councillor conflicts-of-interest and register-of-interests frameworks; reduce unnecessary red tape and regulation; provide certainty to councillors about matters relating to remuneration, leave of absence, vacation of office and eligibility; promote good governance and decision-making; enhance safeguards for local government election candidates and participants; and make various minor, administrative and technical amendments.

After Labor treated councils like second-class citizens during their decade of decline and introduced sweeping changes without consultation, the Crisafulli government takes a different approach. This reform is off the back of listening to councils and working with them to deliver meaningful change. As the member for Townsville, I also have the privilege of representing Palm Island. Palm Island was one of the councils that submitted their thoughts on the bill. I will read some excerpts from their submission. They state— The Bill reflects a welcome return to trust in local government, and a recognition that councils—particularly those in remote and Indigenous communities—are best placed to lead local solutions.

They go on to acknowledge that the reforms are ‘beneficial not only to Palm Island, but to the broader local government sector’. They highlight governance and leadership clarity, simplified conflict- of-interest and conduct frameworks, red-tape reduction, and councillor entitlements and electoral reforms. They further state— These reforms align with Palm Island’s draft Corporate Plan 2026-2031, which calls for strengthened governance, streamlined compliance, and empowered local leadership as foundations for long-term community wellbeing.

... Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council welcomes this Bill as more than a legislative reform—we see it as a signal of trust, a platform for equity, and a step toward a future where First Nations councils are empowered to lead with clarity, confidence and cultural authority.

... Palm Island stands ready to lead, to collaborate, and to model what is possible when Indigenous local governments are empowered not just to deliver services, but to shape futures. We thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important reform, and we look forward to working together to bring its promise to life—for our people, for our sector, and for the generations to come.

It is quite a powerful endorsement of what this bill will do to empower councils and mayors to deliver for Queensland by slashing red tape and reforming council frameworks. I look forward to continuing to work with the Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council as well as Townsville City Council as we continue to deliver for our communities. I commend this bill to the House.

Mrs NIGHTINGALE (Inala—ALP) (6.24 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 in my capacity as deputy chair of the committee that examined this legislation. ‘Examined’ is used loosely here, as we have only just been furnished with the amendments to this bill. The smirking minister over there may think it is amusing to play politics with the local government sector. Instead, she should be treating them with respect.

At the outset I place on record my respect for Queensland’s 77 councils and the mayors and councillors who serve in them. Our councils are made up of people who live in the communities they serve. They are the local leaders who deal with flooded roads, waste contracts, community complaints and development pressures every single week. When legislation affecting them comes to this House it deserves careful consideration and genuine consultation, not last-minute amendments. Because of its close proximity to communities, the industry framework that surrounds local government matters deeply. It protects not only the public but also councillors themselves. It provides clarity and confidence and ensures that decisions are made—and, importantly, are seen to be made—in the public interest.

This bill is presented by the Crisafulli-Bleijie government as empowering councils. Through the committee’s inquiry process. However, we heard substantial concerns that aspects of this legislation do not empower councils but instead remove or weaken safeguards that were deliberately put in place following integrity issues. Many of those safeguards arose from recommendations of the Crime and Corruption Commission following Operation Belcarra. Those reforms were designed to clarify conflict-of-interest obligations, strengthen disclosure requirements and ensure transparency in decision-making. They responded to real integrity failures following investigations into conduct that undermined public trust. Public confidence has been shaken, and the response from this parliament at the time was to strengthen the framework—not to dilute it. In contrast, the committee heard evidence that this bill winds back several of those reforms.

One area of concern relates to conflict-of-interest provisions. The bill increases reliance on councillors self-assessing and managing their own conflicts and narrows the operation of certain restrictions to formal meeting settings. Several submitters raised concern that narrowing this scope of restrictions may create uncertainty about what conduct is captured and when obligations apply. Influence, as we know, does not only occur when a formal vote is being taken. It can occur in briefings, in informal discussions and in preparatory stages of decision-making.

The Office of the Independent Assessor expressed concern about the removal of the ‘close personal relationships’ provision, warning that such a change could increase the likelihood of decisions being made contrary to the public interest. It goes to the heart of how conflicts are identified and managed. The Crime and Corruption Commission also cautioned that some of these reforms may amplifycorruption risks in the local government sector. When the state’s peak integrity bodyraises such concerns this House should weigh them carefully.

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation

One significant change is the return of ‘resign to run’. Councillors who nominate for state parliament will again be required to immediately vacate their office. The committee heard evidence that this may create avoidable vacancies and unnecessary by-elections. Under the current arrangements, councillors can take leave to contest and, if unsuccessful, return to continue serving their communities. That approach recognised both democratic opportunity and continuity of representation. It is worth noting that the requirement to resign was removed in 2012 by the current Premier when he was minister for local government, who then described this requirement as ‘ridiculous’, yet here we are in 2026 with another Crisafulli-Bleijie backflip with a reverse of the Premier’s own reform.

Ms BATES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The use of the term ‘Crisafulli-Bleijie’ government is incorrect and I ask that you request the member to cease and desist.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Marr): Member for Inala, I take the point that the member has put forward and I do agree with that point of order. I ask you to refrain from using that term.

Mrs NIGHTINGALE: Let me correct it for the record. It was a backflip of the Premier and his Deputy Premier, with a reverse of the Premier’s own reform. Queenslanders would be right to ask why the backflip. I can tell you that the local government sector did not call for it, nor did they want it. In fact the Local Government Association of Queensland expressed opposition, describing the change as a step backwards. I thank the LGAQ for their contribution and for their leadership of this sector. It is a shame that the sector cannot get such leadership from the minister. When the peak representative body for councils indicates that a reform will not assist the sector, that should give this House pause.

The bill also contains provisions affecting governance arrangements within Brisbane City Council, particularly in relation to access to civic cabinet documents by non-member councillors prior to decisions being finalised. Ward councillors are frequently the primary point of contact for residents. They are asked to explain decisions and justify outcomes. Restricting access to relevant information before decisions are made may make that role more difficult and may reduce the capacity for informed scrutiny within council structures. Transparency is not an administrative inconvenience; it is a safeguard.

Consultation processes were also raised during the inquiry. The limited formal consultation period occurred over the Christmas period, during Queensland’s peak disaster season and at a time when many remote communities were experiencing significant isolation. Many councils were managing flood recovery, severe weather responses and community disruption at the same time as they were expected to consider detailed legislative amendments.

Sitting suspended from 6.31 pm to 7.30 pm.

Mrs NIGHTINGALE: Deputy Speaker Lister, forgive me for the interruption to my speech now, but I have just had moments to look at these new amendments. It is no wonder the government have snuck them through in the final hour because they are disgraceful. This government were elected on promises of transparency, yet right before our eyes they are going to great lengths to protect their mates. Forget about the Coaldrake report; these new amendments will bury things in secrecy for 10 years. That is ridiculous. They are not letting the sunshine in; they are pulling a big black curtain across it and locking information up for 10 years. This is disgraceful.

Councillors will no longer have access to information that they rightfully need to make decisions and inform them about what they want to do and what their council should do. Those important documents will now be locked up for 10 years. Furthermore, if a councillor of a particular ward wants to find out what is happening with the Story Bridge—as many of us do here in Brisbane—they will not be able to do that unless they are a councillor in the ward that the bridge is located in. What about the bus network which traverses many council wards? Does that mean that all councillors will not get any information about the bus network? I really do not think the minister has thought this through. Fancy locking up information for 10 years.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you were chair of the committee that looked at this bill and I am sure you would have liked an opportunity to look at these amendments. None of us were afforded an opportunity to look at them. This is a significant issue that speaks to integrity, transparency and accountability. This is being hidden under the guise of last-minute amendments. They were withheld from the LGAQ and the 77 councils which may also have an interest in this. The government starts with Brisbane City Council, but who knows what is next? Is this transparent? Absolutely not. This government is all about protecting its mates. It is all about not letting the sunshine in but living in a cloud of secrecy and darkness.

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation

They are absolutely refusing the rights of councillors who work hard in Brisbane City Council every single day. They will now have their hands tied and be blindfolded from important information they have a right to access. People in Brisbane deserve to know the decisions of their council. They are spending a great deal of taxpayer money but it is not going to improving things like the Story Bridge. They are continuing to make mistakes but they are now protected from any scrutiny as it will be hidden from the eyes of everybody for 10 years.

I know that Queenslanders will be able to see through this shonkiness. They will see how shady this is. They will see through the dodgy dealings of this Crisafulli LNP government which features Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie. Queenslanders know about the dodgy, shonky dealings within this government and this is another clear example of that. We will not be fooled by these last-minute amendments.

Mr BOOTHMAN (Theodore—LNP) (7.34 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise to make a contribution to the Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Local government is the level of government that is closest to people’s everyday lives. It is where decisions are made about the roads we drive on, the parks where children play, libraries, community halls, waste services, local planning and practical coordination that matters during disasters. When councils are empowered to act decisively and are held to clear and fair standards, our communities benefit. When councils are smothered in red tape, unclear rules and frameworks that discourage capable people from serving, our communities pay the price. That is why these reforms are about stronger and clearer local government, with less bureaucracy, more accountability and better service delivery.

First, this bill empowers councils. A council cannot deliver for its community if it cannot appropriately shape its own senior leadership team. That is why these reforms re-empower councillors to appoint senior executive employees through appointment panels comprising the mayor, the CEO and the deputy mayor or the relevant committee chair. That is a balanced model. It preserves professional input, ensures accountability for leadership and restores democratic oversight. In Brisbane City Council, this will re-empower councillors to appoint senior contract employees, including at the general manager level, recognising the scale and complexity of Australia’s largest local government.

The legislation also amends the rating powers for Indigenous local governments. This is about fairness. The member for Townsville made a very good contribution about this when it comes to his community on Palm Island. These reforms provide clarity now and establish a framework to enable Indigenous councils to rate in the future when they choose to do so. Good governance relies on clear revenue tools, and these councils deserve the same clarity and stability that others enjoy.

Second, the bill empowers mayors while respecting the role of every councillor. Communities expect to know who speaks for their council. These reforms reiterate that the mayor is the official spokesperson of the council. That clarity matters for emergencies, major announcements and public confidence. Just as importantly, we make it clear that there is a single person who makes the announcements for the council so that gets rid of the confusion. If you think about it, most residents expect their local mayor to be the mouthpiece when it comes to these issues, or they can actually delegate.

Third, it restores a clearer, more workable conflict-of-interest framework. The current split system of prescribed and declarable conflicts of interest has not delivered the clarity it promised. It has created confusion, inconsistency and often processes over purpose. These reforms repeal that framework and return to the material personal interest and conflict-of-interest model that operated from 2013 to early 2018. It is a framework that councillors understand; it is one that focuses on genuine conflicts and one that supports transparent decision-making without paralysing councils.

There are so many good things about this bill and I know it is what the local councillors want. They are very keen for this on the Gold Coast because it builds the transparency they want and gets rid of undue red tape. It is exactly what councils need to grow on the Gold Coast and also restore confidence.

I know there are a lot of other members in this chamber who really want to speak on this bill, so I will leave my comments at that. This bill is good. This legislation is good for the community. It is creating transparency in council and this is what the community deserves.

Ms PEASE (Lytton—ALP) (7.39 pm): My goodness me, what an amazingly shambolic day this has been. I have to say that as an elected representative in this House—

Government members interjected.

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lister): We will have some order thank you, members to my right.

Ms PEASE: Thank you for your protection, Mr DeputySpeaker. I was elected in 2015 to represent the people of the bayside. It was a really proud moment. My constituents watch parliament regularly to see what is going on, so honourable members can imagine how disappointed and ashamed they are to hear, watch and witness the behaviour of the LNP in this chamber not just today but ongoing. I am ashamed. I am ashamed to come in here and have to stand up and talk—

Mr STEVENS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Can we have relevance to the bill at hand, please?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am inclined to give the member a little bit of leniency here. I trust you will be coming to the substance of the bill. I give you the call, member for Lytton.

Ms PEASE: Thank you very much for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that the member for Mermaid Beach or Mermaid Waters—wherever he is from—always loves to get up and give me a hard time, so bring it on I say. It would be disappointing if he did not.

Mr Whiting: Especially after dinner.

Ms PEASE: That is right. I was about to start on the bill, particularly about today. Here I am; I am on a committee. I am on the committee that you chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. Amendments were introduced into the House with no time for our committee to scrutinise them, with no time for the LGAQ to scrutinise them, with no time for the councils across Queensland to scrutinise them, and now we are required to vote on them.

Mr Head: Was it 17 minutes?

Mr Stevens: Eighteen minutes.

Mr Head: Eighteen minutes. What was that for again? It changed our voting system, didn’t it?

Ms PEASE: I am actually quite happy to take all of those ridiculous interjections from over there because it is not just this one bill. I think it is every bill that has been introduced into this chamber since that mob over there was elected that has been made an urgent bill. ‘This one is urgent. This one is urgent,’ and then at the last minute we are flung amendments. What an embarrassment to their lot. If I were those backbenchers I would be saying, `What the hell is our leadership doing?’

Government members interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lytton, if you wish to enliven interjections, gesticulating like that is one way to ensure they happen. I can only provide you so much protection.

Ms PEASE: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am more than happy to take the interjections because it might give the backbenchers the opportunity to voice their concerns and their disappointment with their leadership team, which is probably what they are doing because they are going to get guillotined.

Ms CAMM: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order on relevance to the long title of the bill. Could we draw the member’s attention to that?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lytton, you have had a good go. I can see you are illustrating something to come back to the bill. I encourage you to do that.

Ms PEASE: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yes, I am talking to the long title of the bill because I am talking about the verylimited amount of time we were given to look at the amendments. I am sorry, but does that not fit into the long title of the bill? Is that another thing that this LNP government has changed—what actually fits under the long title of the bill? Perhaps it has; I do not know. It could have happened—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you are straying into commentary on decisions of the chair or potential decisions of the chair. I ask you to move on and speak to the bill.

Ms PEASE: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will because I want to make our local councils across Queensland aware of what these amendments actually mean. These amendments to the bill mean that council documentation will not be available to be accessed for 10 years. My council— I am part of Brisbane City Council—has a budget of millions of dollars. In actual fact, the Brisbane City Council budget was $4.1 billion last financial year. I am sure that the councillors, particularly my own councillor, Councillor Givney for the Wynnum Manly ward, would like to have access to documentation and to find out about the proposed neighbourhood plan changes and what it means for the constituents in their wards. Now under this bill and these amendments that were just handed down tonight, unless the individual councillor is part of that civic cabinet they will not be allowed to find that out. It will now be inaccessible for 10 years.

What are we trying to hide here? What is actually the purpose of these amendments? It beggars belief, quite frankly. These amendments dramatically, as I have said, restrict councillors’ access to key decision-making documents within the Brisbane City Council committees. What are we trying to hide that we do not want our councillors to see, regardless of their political colour? Why are non-committee members, including the Brisbane Labor councillors, being locked out of important documents, even where the decisions affect the entire city? I cannot comprehend why. What is the purpose of that?

These amendments and their secrecy go in the opposite direction of the transparency reform that was the start of the Coaldrake review. That review called for greater transparency, stronger accountability and improved access to rebuild public trust. How is doing this building public trust? To me it is portraying the government as trying to hide things that are going on within the councils. I am sorry, but I am very confused. I guess I am confused because as a committee and as the opposition we did not actually have a chance to scrutinise those amendments. We did not have the opportunity to get behind them and talk about that. The other thing is that I have here a speaking list that is two pages.

Mr Kempton: Good for you.

Ms PEASE: I will take that interjection because do you know what? You are going to be guillotined. You are not going to get to talk about it. That is what this is about.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lytton, please direct your comments through the chair.

Ms PEASE: I took the interjection, thank you very much. All of these government members at the bottom of the list are probably going to miss out on talking about this ‘very important piece of legislation’.

Mr Ryan: Table it.

Ms PEASE: I am going to table this speaking list. I would like to table it because they are all going to miss out, as are the opposition members and crossbenchers. Tabled paper: Document, undated, speaking list titled ‘Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill’ [289].

This is all down to the fact that this is ‘really important legislation’ that ‘has to go through tonight’. There is all of this secrecy, hypocrisy and lack of transparency. ‘It is so urgent.’ If it is so important—

A government member interjected.

Ms PEASE: I do not know what I am talking about because I was not given any time to review the documents. That is why. I have had no opportunity.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One of the things Mr Speaker emphasised during the week at the meeting of the Deputy Speakers is that we are to stomp on cross-chamber quarrelling. I can see his point because it lets things get out of hand. Could we all just take a chill pill? I encourage members not to engage in cross-chamber chatter or respond to interjections that are provocative. I will handle the House.

Ms PEASE: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to take the interjection from the member for Warrego indicating that I do not know what I am talking about and reinforce that the reason I do not know what is going on in the bill is that I was not given the opportunity to review the amendments. That is why. Like all of us, I have been going through them because at the last moment I was given the opportunity to speak to this bill and obviously I am upsetting those opposite. What is really frightening is that we should be more upset and they should be more worried about what the community is going to think of them. What will the community and what will the councillors say about this bill being rushed through like this? What will local councillors—

Ms Boyd interjected.

Mr HEAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I take personal offence at the interjection from the member for Pine Rivers directed at me and I ask her to withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear it. Is it common ground here that you made an interjection, member for Pine Rivers? Would you withdraw?

Ms BOYD: I withdraw.

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation

Ms PEASE: This bill departs from key recommendations of the CCC Operation Belcarra, and those reforms strengthened the integrity laws to manage conflicts of interest and reduce corruption risks. I, like most Queenslanders, abhor corruption. That is why it is really important that we ensure that councils are strong and full of integrity and give them every opportunity that we can to ensure that they have easy, clear guidelines to follow and that they are transparent and cannot be led down the path of corruption.

A government member: Ugh!

Ms PEASE: Excuse me, but I am going to continue and ignore the member for Nicklin because, as usual, he very rarely has anything important to say.

Government members interjected.

Ms PEASE: The bill changes the conflict-of-interest and register-of-interests settings—

Government members interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House is quite disorderly. This is not a circus. If you have something to say, take it outside please.

Ms PEASE: The bill mandates councillor involvement in senior executive appointment processes. Some councils already do this but others do not—for good reasons, including conflicts of interest in small communities, a lack of expertise in complex recruitment, time burdens and the desire to preserve an objective, merit-based separation between elected members and administration. Queensland councils are diverse. A uniform governance model does not fit every council nor every size, every capacity and context. During our inquiry stakeholders raised concerns about removing the conduct breaches that create a gap between minor matters and serious misconduct or corrupt conduct, leaving serious behavioural issues without a clear enforcement pathway.

I want to finish how I started and reinforce the opposition’s disappointment in the lack of time that we were given to participate in consideration of the amendments—something that impacts each and every Queenslander and each and every council. Again, I apologise to my constituents for the unruly behaviour.

Mrs KIRKLAND (Rockhampton—LNP) (7.51 pm): Well, that was a really very thorough argument coming from the member for Lytton. Thank you for your contribution—hoo!. I rise to speak to the Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill.

Ms PEASE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I take personal offence from the member and ask her to withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lister): Member for Rockhampton, the member has taken personal offence. Will you withdraw?

Mrs KIRKLAND: I withdraw.

Ms PEASE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Can I ask that the member withdraw in a fulsome and proper manner, not with those intonations in her voice?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard the member make the withdrawal. It appeared to me to be unqualified to the standard that we accept here. There is no point of order.

Ms Pease: Oh, that’s standard. Okay; all right. I’ll keep that in mind.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I beg your pardon, member for Lytton?

Ms Pease: I’ll keep that in mind. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You would not be reflecting on the chair, would you?

Ms Pease: No. I said I’d keep it in mind.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Rockhampton, you have the call.

Mrs KIRKLAND: This bill is about empowering councils again. It is about consistency. It is about removing disruption from the activities of local government. I want to thank the local government minister for her work in bringing this bill to the House, the Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, or the empowering councils bill. Already I have heard from the opposition assumptions that all councillors are corrupt. I want to speak to this bill tonight.

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation

Ms Bates interjected.

Mrs KIRKLAND: Yes, there was one, but not all councillors. This bill speaks to over 20 reforms that present the first phase of the Crisafulli government’s significant reforms to re-empower Queensland local governments by reducing red tape and giving councils the resources and legislative framework they need to deliver for their communities. If there is one thing that has stood in the way of our local governments’ functionality it would be the introduction of the restrictive legislative changes that were brought in by the previous Labor government and the self-serving strongarm manipulation of local government processes that both hamstrung and, in multiple cases, resulted in the deliberate character assassination of elected members of local government.

For eight years councillors and mayors from across our state were prevented from getting on with the job of serving their communities due to the previous government’s legislative gross overreaches. In 2020 I was elected to local government and experienced firsthand the challenges of navigating the legislation that was handed down by the previous government. Less than half of the two local government legislative amendments associated with the Belcarra reforms were based on the Belcarra CCC recommendations. The majority of the changes were introduced by the previous Labor government and were implemented without adequate consultation. The previous Labor government treated Queensland local governments with disdain, ignoring the calls to wind back legislation. The constraints and the confusion that its legislation put into local governments resulted in Labor’s decade of chaos being transferred into the chambers of local governments.

Tonight I want to speak to the issue of conflicts of interest. This is something that throws councils into chaos because we never know whether we are allowed to be in the room or out of the room. If you are related to somebody that is fair enough; you need to step out of the room. The challenges that we experienced though came when it was explained to us what counts as a prescribed conflict of interest. The guidance that was given was that if you would invite a person connected to the matter under discussion to your wedding then that relationship constitutes a prescribed conflict. How ridiculous! A lot of us live in small communities where we would invite half the community and that community is inevitably going to be related somehow to the matters put to local governments for discussions. We are members of local clubs. We are members of local organisations that put before the council issues that are ready for debate. To assume that we are not going to invite those people to our wedding and to then say that that is a prescribed conflict of interest is purely ludicrous. It is worth noting that over the last 10 years we have seen fewer people nominating to represent their communities as a local councillor, which possibly could be related to those ridiculous laws.

I have attended multiple LGAQ conferences and the hottest topic was this unworkable prescribed conflict of interest and the perceived conflict of interest. Every day of the week councillors were talking about how unworkable it was. This bill returns to the more effective and workable conflict-of-interest framework in place from 2013 to 2018. The Labor government is not for local government. Remember how it was treating local government back when all of the Belcarra conversations were started. It then sacked mayors and councillors by press release before the relevant legislation was even in place—a decision that would later be overturned after two years of soul-destroying vilification and character assassination. Those councillors and their families were completely changed—ruined, wrecked—as a result of that decision to just go ahead and sack them without having any valid evidence or proof. Labor still meddled though during the industrial dispute process to the point that the CCC ruled that it had overstepped its mark. The former Labor government oversaw the Office of the Independent Assessor, the actions of which created uncertainty and concern among councillors and hindered their ability to carry out their responsibilities as elected representatives. The legislative framework that it introduced does not adequately distinguish between political conduct and genuine legal wrongdoing.

I want to speak to an incident that happened when I was in local government when a mayor was harassed and harangued so much. The previous Labor government’s harassment and agenda driven by vendetta, facilitated via its overreaching legislative changes, embarked on what was a relentless pursuit of a vexatious claim against our former mayor of Rockhampton. This egregious display of government manipulation led to an unexpected resignation that gained national—indeed, international—media attention.

It is worth noting that the former mayor pursued justice and was officially exonerated four years later, having already suffered character assassination of this gross injustice. The former mayor’s resignation threw those opposite into a mad scramble as they recognised the flaws in their rigid, non-democratic legislation—legislation that allowed runner-up candidates to be appointed to vacancies that were caused by mayoral and councillor resignations in contradiction and conflict with the state- Commonwealth by-election laws. Mind you, the realisation did not come overnight. They were made

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation well aware of the flaws and the need for change through the LGAQ and appeals from local government elected members right across the state. In fact, at an LGAQ conference previous minister Stirling Hinchliffe even alluded to imminent changes that were specific to that very part of the legislation, though it was not brought forward. They neglected councils for a decade, introducing many changes. Today’s bill brings restoration.

The bill clarifies councillors’ entitlement to remuneration from the date their term starts or the date they are started until the date their term ends. Importantly, the bill provides for the automatic removal from office of councillors who stand for election to the Queensland Legislative Assembly. This brings Queensland local government into line with the state and Commonwealth governments.We have seen recently in Queensland the resignation of the previous member for Hinchinbrook so he could run for office and there are a number of us—councillors and mayors alike—here in this room today because we did the right thing by our communities. When we were going to run for state parliament we resigned from our councillor position. That is the right thing to do and that has been embedded within this legislation. It is a good thing

Mr Bennett: We thank you.

Mrs KIRKLAND: Thank you; I take that interjection. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Ms MULLEN (Jordan—ALP) (8.09 pm): The good old days of the old Albert shire council! Give me strength! I rise to contribute to the Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill—this oh so urgent legislation that we must pass tonight. The Queensland opposition supports in principle the objective of this bill, recognising the vital role of Queensland’s 77 councils and empowering them to achieve the most effective operating environment so they can best serve their communities and all Queenslanders. However, the opposition holds concerns that, whilst this bill claims to empower councils and streamline regulation, certain elements will, in practice, weaken integrity, transparency and accountability across local government.

Local government is the level closest to the people. Councils manage billions of dollars in public assets, make decisions that shape our communities and directly affect the lives of Queenslanders. With that proximity comes enormous responsibility and with that responsibility must come robust safeguards. However, throughout the committee process concerns were consistently raised that the proposed bill winds back many of these safeguards and of particular concern are the considerable changes which have reduced or removed independent oversight mechanisms, weakened conflict of interest management and reduced disclosure standards. These changes will have far-reaching implications that impact on Queenslanders’ perception of local government integrity and threaten the protection of public confidence in governance. We heard this explicitly from the Crime and Corruption Commission in their submission— The CCC considers that the Bill, if enacted, will wind back some of the significant integrity and transparency measures which were enshrined in local government laws in Queensland. The CCC considers this approach to be inconsistent with its Belcarra report recommendations and the public interest in ensuring good governance and mitigating corruption risks in local government.

Operation Belcarra was not a trivial matter. Following the 2016 local government elections the CCC investigated 111 allegations, ultimately focusing on 55 allegations involving Gold Coast, Moreton Bay, Logan and Ipswich councils. They undertook 115 interviews, interrogated 40 witnesses at public hearings and made 31 recommendations. As we know, following the Belcarra report further investigations ensued which led to corruption and misconduct offences being brought forward against elected representatives and council officers.

Conflict-of-interest laws exist for a reason. They ensure that when councillors make decisions they do so in the public interest, not for personal gain, not for political convenience and not under undisclosed influence. As a member representing an area that has seen corruption take hold of its local council in recent memory, it is very concerning to see this LNP government ignoring the advice of experts and of stakeholders, elevating the corruption risks and creating more transparency gaps. This bill winds back important safeguards recommended by the Crime and Corruption Commission to prevent corruption and restore public trust. It narrows definitions, it weakens reporting obligations and it reduces avenues for independent review. In effect, it asks councillors to mark their own homework. If we have learnt anything from past integrity failures it is that transparency and independent oversight are not bureaucratic burdens, they are the price of public confidence. When definitions become looser and oversight weaker, disputes do not disappear; they multiply. They move from transparent processes into courtrooms, into media cycles and into community mistrust. Councils will bear the reputational damage, councillors will bear the personal risk and communities will bear the consequences.

The bill also removes the prohibition on councillors with conflicts influencing decisions outside formal meetings. This will enable lobbying of staff or fellow councillors behind closed doors. The Office of the Independent Assessor noted— We see an integrity risk in the removal of the current influence provision for conduct outside statutory meetings.

It also increases challenges for council officers who may be briefing elected representatives knowing they have a direct conflict, something that was raised, of course, by the Local Government Managers Australia. Empowerment is not the absence of rules. Empowerment is clarity, empowerment is certainty and empowerment is knowing that decisions are made under a system that protects both elected representatives and the public they serve.

The other interesting provision in this bill is that it will remove a councillor’s existing right to return from compulsory leave and resume their role if unsuccessful in a state election instead of vacating the office entirely.

A government member: Hear, hear!

Ms MULLEN: What a complete about-face from the LNP. I cannot believe they can actually keep a straight face about this and yell, ‘Hear, hear!’ In 2012 the then local government minister, now Premier of Queensland, could not wait to remove the provision in the Local Government Act that required councillors to resign before contesting a state election. At the time he said it was a ridiculous situation, a matter of equity. It is clear that it is not ridiculous anymore in 2026.

Let us go back in history. I want to correct the record in relation to what was said by the member for Mermaid Beach. It was actually Nita Cunningham who introduced those laws back in 2001 when the then Beattie government put those laws through requiring councillors to resign when running for state elections. I want to quote someone who I never thought I would ever want to quote in this House. I want to quote the words of the then member for Callide, Jeff Seeney, who at the time was completely outraged by this proposition. He said in this very chamber— This legislation sets a new benchmark. It sets a pattern for avoiding fair contests. It seeks to limit the contest. He goes on to say— In addition, the government is not prepared to go out into the Queensland electorate and face a fair contest come election time. It is trying to nobble the field. It is trying to take out anybody who has half a chance, anybody who it thinks might have a bit of an advantage or anybody with a good chance of contesting a seat against their somewhat dubious and doubtful candidates.

How times have changed, yet perhaps the sentiment remains the same. I also found it quite curious that when the government announced these significant reforms that were being brought forward through this bill, it seems they forgot to mention this particular provision in the legislation. Indeed, a number of delegates to the LGAQ annual conference in October last year told me they could not recall the Premier announcing this measure in his keynote address to the local government sector. In fact, it also curiously seems to have fallen off the media release announcing these reforms. There was not one reference. Surelyit was not because the government knew that the majorityof Queensland councils are opposed to this or the fact that it goes directly against the LGAQ’s policy position, or that it is not in keeping with the government’s much-vaunted Equal Partners in Government agreement. No, I am sure that is not the reason the government stayed so quiet—in fact, silent—on this provision in the bill. The only thing that has changed is the Premier’s political self-interest. This hypocrisy underscores a deeper concern that this bill is not a principled reform of local government but a politically convenient recalibration of the rules.

Consistencymatters in governance. Integrityframeworks must not be reshaped according to who benefits at a particular moment in time. If we truly want to empower councils we should be strengthening the very mechanisms that protect them from corruption, from undue influence and from accusations of impropriety. We should be enhancing training, improving transparency tools and ensuring independent oversight bodies are adequately resourced. It risks sending a message to the community that lessons from the past have been forgotten, that safeguards painstakingly built after integrity crises can be dismantled with the stroke of a pen.

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation

Finally, I turn to these last-minute amendments that the minister foreshadowed. There is so much foreshadowing going on in parliament at the moment by this hapless government. What is clear from a cursory read is that these amendments could really have been named the ‘Schrinner special’. It is clear from reading them that these tabled amendments dramatically restrict council’s access to key decision-making documents within Brisbane City Council committees and it ensures that non-committee councillors, including Brisbane Labor councillors—surprise, surprise—are being locked out from important documents, even when the decisions affect the entire city. Councillors are elected to represent residents across Brisbane, yet these provisions will prevent them from fully understanding the basis of major decisions. What is very clear is that these amendments create a 10-year exemption under right to information laws for committee information.

An opposition member: Wild!

Ms MULLEN: It is absolutely wild, I will take that interjection. Locking out not only the councillors but also the public as well. What is clear is that the Lord Mayor of Brisbane has obviously bullied this hopeless, weak minister into doing his bidding for him, helping him to hide and cover up significant briefing material and documents from the Labor opposition and the people of Brisbane.

Mr Dick: What’s to hide?

Ms MULLEN: I take that interjection: what is it that they want to hide? Local government is too important to be treated lightly. The decisions made in council chambers affect roads, water, planning, community services and the economic future of our regions. Queenslanders deserve confidence that these decisions are made under a framework that is strong, independent and, importantly, transparent. Empowering councils should mean strengthening confidence, not weakening safeguards.

Hon. DE FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (8.19 pm): I rise to speak to the Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Before I go to the bill itself, I want to pay tribute to the 77 councils that operate throughout Queensland, the elected councillors and mayors who run them and the hardworking staff who make sure the wheels turn. Together, they go to such efforts to provide the services that contribute directly to the quality of life of everyday Queenslanders, often under extremely challenging circumstances in this great state of ours, which is so geographically dispersed. As a minster it was a privilege to work closely with so many of the current and previous mayors. They are people who are close to their communities. I also acknowledge the absolutely outstanding work of the LGAQ.

I give a particular shout-out to the local councillors of my patch, the ward of Morningside, since I was elected in 2009: councillors Shayne Sutton, Kara Cook and Lucy Collier, the current councillor. I have watched closely the things they do and the volume and nature of the issues raised with them. Big and small issues have such capacityto make people immediatelyhappy, sad, angry, frustrated or joyful. I am in awe of what they do and have done to try to get solutions, whatever a person’s needs. What a responsibility.

Of course, people just like them live all over Queensland, and that makes it all the more galling that the LNP government has ridden roughshod over their opinions given the way they have progressed this bill, as they always do with every bill—all the ministers, with all they do and with all stakeholders on all the issues. It is simply the way they operate. They just work to themselves. It looks like they could not have tried any harder to make sure that local governments were asked to provide feedback on such an important bill at exactly the time they would be least likely to do it—that is, through the disaster season. That was a great way to make sure no-one could give too much feedback on a pesky bill that was going through parliament.

What is it about these people and disaster season? The minister who is taking this bill through the parliament is also the Minister for Disaster Recovery. While she was not on holiday, she surely would have known that local governments, the very bodies at whom this bill is aimed, would be a bit busy. The minister with responsibility for community recovery, the member for Whitsunday, took off on her African holiday in the middle of disaster season. She did not even care. What is it about these people and disaster season?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lister): Member for Bulimba, I do not see that that is relevant to the bill before us. I encourage you to stick to the long title of the bill.

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation

Ms FARMER: I digress. Speaking of consultation—not. Not only do we have only two hours to debate such a consequential bill; at the eleventh hour we receive amendments that no-one had even heard of before. These people are shockers. They do this with nearly every single piece of legislation. Clearly, they have form. They have done it up to this point and they are going to do it for the rest of this term.

I believe that the shadow minister for local government has amply covered the Labor opposition’s position on the bill, as have my colleagues who have already spoken. The matters that I want to speak to relate specifically to the Brisbane City Council. Huge kudos goes to the Labor team in the Brisbane City Council led by Councillor Jared Cassidy, with councillors Lucy Collier, Steve Griffiths, Charles Strunk and Emily Kim supporting him. It is a mighty team. The machine of the Brisbane City Council is being actively and politically used against them every single day, ranging from withholding major documents that would allow them to contribute to decision-making to what happened this week when they blurred the video of any of the Labor councillors who were speaking in council and then unblurred it for the LNP councillors. It is petty. It is singular, every single day but despite that—

An opposition member: They learned from that bloke over there.

Ms FARMER: They would want to blur some of those. Despite that, the Labor team achieves outcomes for the ratepayers of Brisbane every single day. With this bill we see that Adrian Schrinner wants even more. Just like the LNP at state level, the LNP at the Brisbane City Council level want decision-making to be done in secret. This bill reinforces that for them, courtesy of their state colleagues. As if this bill was not already bad enough, it will: restrict non-civic cabinet councillors from accessing decision-making documents before decisions are made; require ward councillors to explain decisions to residents probably without having seen the underlying evidence; limit scrutiny, reduce transparency and weaken democratic accountability; and concentrate information with smaller executive groups, reducing confidence in council decision-making. That was in the bill before we even saw the amendments.

It is as if the rates that are paid by constituents in non-LNP wards are not of the same value as the rates that are paid by constituents in LNP wards. It is as if their money cannot buy the same council services and the same council transparency and attention that the rates of constituents in LNP wards do. It is as if the concerns of the constituents of non-LNP wards do not matter as much as the concerns of the constituents in LNP wards.

The LNP council in Brisbane wants even more control, which is why we are now seeing these amendments that dramatically restrict councillors’ access to key decision-making documents within Brisbane City Council. Only members of the Establishment and Coordination Committee will be able to access many documents while decisions are being considered. We are talking about a 10-year exemption under RTI laws for committee information, which locks out not only the non-LNP councillors but also the public.

We are talking about major decisions that affect our city—the Olympic city. No-one will have access to those decisions. We are talking about the Story Bridge. Bits of the Story Bridge were falling down on top of people and under these laws no-one in council would ever have to explain why. We are talking about rate rises in times of cost-of-living pressures, when every single dollar matters. This council will not have to explain to anybody why they have raised rates. We are talking about public infrastructure such as the Metro, the buses, the CityCats and the Olympic infrastructure. There is so much happening around Olympic infrastructure. There are so many dodgy decisions that we never hear anything about under this state government. Now the Brisbane City Council is going to buy into that lack of transparency.

What about waste recovery facilities? What about landfill? What about our neighbourhood plans? What about areas like mine where density is such an issue? Decisions about public transport, planning and how people live must be transparent because they influence the quality of life of every single Brisbane resident every single day. How will we ever know how the council has made decisions? How will they ever be accountable? That is what they have done with this bill. They have talked this government and this weak minister into making these decisions which will mean they can do everything they want and no-one will ever know about it. It is corrupt, it is crook and it is about time these people were called to account.

That is why these amendments have come through at the last minute. They have come through at the last minute so that nobody can scrutinise them. The public of Brisbane will not hear about what has been happening. People in my local area, in the Morningside ward, will not hear about how council can so easily dupe them on every single decision made about their quality of life. It absolutely stinks.

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation The people opposite need to know that we are watching them every single step of the way on every single thing they do. We are going to make sure that Queenslanders—and in this case we are going to make sure that the residents of our areas—know how crooked this government is and how crooked they are allowing the decisions of the Brisbane City Council to be. It is not right and Queenslanders deserve better.

Mr JAMES (Mulgrave—LNP) (8.28 pm): I must agree with the member for Lytton when said she did not know what she was talking about. Unless you are an ex-councillor who lived through the Belcarra era—

Ms PEASE: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr JAMES: She said how good it was!

Ms PEASE: I rise to a point of order. I take personal offence and I ask him to withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has taken personal offence and asks you to withdraw, member for Mulgrave.

Mr JAMES: I withdraw. The member for Lytton said how good the Belcarra legislation was. I can say it was an absolute nightmare. It pitted councillors against councillors, councillors against staff and vice versa, almost destroying local government, so I solely agree with the words of the member for Rockhampton as well.

This bill marks a fundamental step forward in restoring true local government by strengthening our councils, reducing red tape and empowering mayors, allowing Queensland communities to flourish under fit-for-purpose legislation. The necessity for reforming council frameworks is clear. Over the past decade, local government in Queensland has faced significant uncertainty and operational roadblocks. This was the legacy of the previous Labor policies—

Mr SPEAKER: Member for Mulgrave, I am afraid I have to ask you to resume your seat. Under the provisions of the order agreed to by the House, I call the minister to reply to the second reading debate.

Hon. ALEAHY (Warrego—LNP) (Minister for Local Government and Water and Minister for Fire, Disaster Recovery and Volunteers) (8.30pm), in reply: I thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. In my opening remarks, I emphasised the bill will create an environment where the local government sector is empowered and councillors are trusted to get on with serving their communities without unnecessary red tape, regulatory burden and state intervention. After all, just like members of this House, councillors are directly elected by their communities and should be held accountable by the people who live in those communities.

The bill is just the beginning of the Crisafulli government’s wideranging reform agenda for the sector which is being delivered in partnership with the LGAQ as part of our Equal Partners in Government agreement. I would like to take a moment to address some of the points raised during this debate. In particular, I would like to give the member for Pine Rivers a shout-out. It is hard to come into this place and admit one’s faults, but she summoned up the courage, swallowed her pride and stood up and acknowledged that it had been ‘a bumpy decade for the sector’. I cannot disagree with her on that. She was part of the Labor Party’s decade of decline that relegated local government to second-class citizens, and it is good that she has taken responsibility for her part in this. What I find strange is that she has thrown the Leader of the Opposition under the bus. As Minister for Local Government, he was definitely one of the potholes that she refers to. I am sure she remembers exactly—

Ms BOYD: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find the comments not only inaccurate but also personally offensive and I ask for the minister to withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: You have taken personal offence?

Ms BOYD: I do, indeed, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has taken personal offence. I ask you to withdraw.

Ms LEAHY: I withdraw. I am sure she remembers exactly the issues that contributed to the decade of decline, but, for the benefit of the House, I will take a trip down that bumpy decade for the local government sector. Let’s start in 2008—

Ms Boyd interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Member for Pine Rivers, I will not caution you again.

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation

Ms LEAHY: Let’s start in 2008 when they disrespected local government across the state and forciblyamalgamated Queensland’s councils against communityconsultation. They sacked mayors and councillors by press release before the relevant legislation was actually in place. I am glad the member talked about the Office of the Independent Assessor because I know the member for Gregory could probably talk about the Office of the Independent Assessor as well.

Mr Dillon interjected.

Ms LEAHY: I will take that interjection. The machinery which they created has spread confusion amongst councillors and impeded them from fulfilling their role as elected officials. They were forced to amend legislation to stop runner-up candidates being appointed to vacancies caused by mayoral resignations, and that was only changed after a candidate who received 30 per cent of the vote nearly became the mayor of Rockhampton.

Mr Lister: Oh, ‘Pineapple’!

Ms LEAHY: I will take that interjection. The whole debate cost the ratepayers of Rockhampton half a million dollars in by-elections. It took Labor three attempts to sack their Labor mates in Ipswich. They delayed this, even though they were repeatedly warned about corruption by the former member for Bundamba. Then they tried to rig the voting system for local government elections by proposing to introduce compulsory preferential voting. They proposed that unions could outspend the lord mayoral candidates by up to 4,000:1. They sacked the democratically elected Logan City Council on charges that were later dropped.

Ms Camm: Shameful.

Ms LEAHY: I take that interjection. And they meddled in the industrial dispute of the same with the PCCC finding they had overstepped their mark. Let’s not forget, in the dying gasps of their government, they had over 200 days to act on the Troy Thompson debacle at Townsville City Council.

Government members: They did nothing.

Ms LEAHY: I take those interjections that theysat on their hands—the flexibilityof one-size-fits-all governance. The opposition made comments that the bill assumes that the ununiformed governance model is appropriate for all councils. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The bill removes red tape and unnecessary regulation which the local government sector has told us is preventing them from serving their communities. What the bill does is recognise the important role and responsibilityof council mayors. Section 12 of the Local Government Act 2009 alreadyprovides that a mayor has additional responsibilities to other councillors. This reflects their mandate as directly elected office holders who serve the interests of the entire local government area. The bill recognises the important role of mayors and the expectations that come from being directly elected by the whole community. For example, the bill provides that the mayor is to be the member of the appointed panel for the senior executive employees and is the official spokesperson of the council and is the chairperson of the council meetings. These are roles that the community would expect the mayor to perform.

There were comments made about training and support that will be provided to councils ahead of implementation of this legislation. As I emphasised in my remarks earlier in the debate, we have provided for a staged commencement of some of the key reforms. The revised frameworks for conflicts of interest and register of interests and removal of conduct breaches will commence on proclamation in order to ensure sufficient time for training, guidance and support for the sector. This reflects the comments from the committee throughout the report. The department will also be providing guidance in relation to appointment panels, removal of quarry materials and competitive neutrality complaints.

My department has developed comprehensive wraparound support for councils to help understand the amendments and will include webinars hosted by the director-general, one-on-one information sessions with every council, updated training resources, model procedures and templates. All these resources and supports will be available as soon as assent on the bill is reached.

The members opposite expressed concern that abolishing conduct breaches leaves serious behavioural issues and breaches of council policy without a clear enforcement pathway. It is suggested that behaviour such as threatening or aggressive conduct, misuse of council resources, representing council while intoxicated or breach of the gifts and benefits policies may no longer be adequately captured. This is not the case. The bill provides that the robust safeguards and mechanisms will remain in place to appropriately deal with this type of behaviour. If an employee is at risk of harm or their safety is threatened because of a councillor’s conduct, the council CEO has a duty to act under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and can give an enforceable direction to the councillor to protect the staff member. Failure by a councillor to comply with the direction may constitute misconduct. Several

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation examples offered by opposition members would, if proven, be criminal offences such as fraud or breaches of other legislation. Misuse of council resources and breaches of the gifts and benefits policies may constitute corrupt conduct.

It is important to mention some of the very considered points made by stakeholders in favour of the removal of conduct breaches. They highlighted the management of conduct breaches is costly and ineffective in its current form. Existing penalties are minor or tokenistic and do not act as a deterrent for future poor behaviour and reoffending. Their removal will reduce the stress and investigation overheads while maintaining serious oversight by the OIA and the Councillor Conduct Tribunal, and the changes will ensure focus on the more serious conduct matters to reduce the council reporting to the OIA.

There was mention of the removal provisions implementing the various CCC recommendations in the Belcarra report. Recommendation 23 of the Belcarra report prescribed that where a councillor declares a conflict of interest, or where another councillor has reported a councillor’s conflict of interest, the other councillors at the meeting must vote on whether a councillor has a conflict of interest and whether the councillor should leave the meeting while the matter is discussed and voted on or remain in the meeting to discuss and vote on the matter. Since the implementation of this recommendation, stakeholders have raised concerns that requiring councillors to vote on whether other councillors may participate in decisions creates tension in local governments and represents an opportunity for the conflicts-of-interest framework to be exploited or politicised.

For example, a councillor may vote dishonestly in order to prevent a councillor from appropriately participating in a decision for political gain to manipulate the outcome or for reprisal. A councillor’s vote on another councillor’s participation in decisions can be swayed by the fear of reprisal the next time the other councillors are required to vote on their own participation in a decision. These have been longstanding concerns of many local governments. The government’s policy is that councillors should ultimately be responsible for managing their own conflicts of interest, informed by guidance material produced bythe department and backed bystrong penalties for those councillors who knowinglybreach the trust placed in them by their communities.

Recommendation 24 of the Belcarra report was that councillors are required to report whether they know or reasonably suspect another councillor has a conflict of interest in a matter before the council. Since the implementation of this recommendation, stakeholders have reported that this arrangement is vulnerable to misuse. A councillor who wishes to disrupt a council proceeding or force a councillor to vote on whether or not to exclude another councillor from a meeting can repeatedly raise trivial concerns about another councillor’s potential conflict of interest under the protection of the reporting obligation. The bill removes the requirement to report suspicions of other councillors’ conflicts of interest. The bill correctly shifts the onus of managing the conflicts of interest to the individual councillors rather than making it the responsibility of the entire council. This change will remove the potential abuse of process and support orderly and efficient council meetings. Let me be clear: the amendments do not prevent the often helpful practice of a councillor bringing the potential conflict of interest to the attention of a councillor.

Councillors are required to act in the public interest. The bill recognises that other councillors are not necessarily better placed to determine if a councillor can make a decision in the public interest than the councillor themselves. The new framework is backed by significant penalties and reputational damage for councillors who abuse the trust placed in them by their communities.

We heard quite a bit in relation to the resign-to-run regime. I want to point out to those members that today’s political environment is very different from 2012, with state and local government elections now at fixed terms and seven months apart. It is a very different landscape from a decade ago. These changes deliver certainty to local government and minimise costly by-elections.

I want to talk about the people in this House who have done the right thing and said to their community, ‘We will not stand again at the March local government election. We will put our hand up for the state election.’ I want to mention the member for Gregory, Sean Dillon. I want to mention the member for Keppel, Nigel Hutton. I want to mention the member for Mulgrave as well. I want to mention the member for Rockhampton, Donna Kirkland, who said, ‘I’m going to put my hand up to serve my community in the state parliament, and I am not going to recontest the local government elections.’

Ms Camm: What about Whitsunday?

Ms LEAHY: I also want to mention the member for Whitsunday. The member forWhitsunday also said, ‘I am not going to stand in the March local government elections.’ She also said, ‘I want to represent my community in the state parliament.’ I want to mention the member for Clayfield. He said, ‘I want to represent my community in the state parliament.’ I want to also mention the member for

Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Burleigh. The member for Burleigh said, ‘I want to represent my community in the state parliament. I will not recontest. I will enable my community to have a choice of who takes on that position in council. I will do the right thing.’ I also want to mention the member for Hervey Bay—another one who did the right thing—who said, ‘I will resign my position. I will not recontest.’ I also want to mention the member for Thuringowa—another one on our side of politics.

A government member: Have you mentioned Ray was the mayor of the Gold Coast?

Ms LEAHY: I also want to mention the first and only mayor for the shire of Albert, and therefore the best, who also did the right thing by his community. I want to mention the member for Burdekin as well, because he did the right thing. There is one that I—

Government members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! For confusion, no, I was not.

Ms LEAHY: I would be remiss if I did not mention the member for Broadwater, who also did the right thing. On this side of the House we are the party of local government and we do the right thing by our constituencies. We are quite clear in relation to where we will represent our communities. We are very clear in relation to how we will go about that. The members on this side of the House do the right thing by their communities.

In the time I have left, I will talk in relation to some of the amendments impacting Brisbane City Council. I reiterate the Crisafulli government’s policy objective is to enable sound and robust decision-making by Brisbane City Council’s civic cabinet for the benefit of the people living in Brisbane. The bill amends section 171 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 to provide that the power to request assistance or information applies to a councillor in relation to the defined committee information only if the councillor is a member of civic cabinet. I want to make that very clear: it applies only if they are a member of civic cabinet. If the councillor is not a member of civic cabinet, section 171 applies only to the extent of committee information as it relates to a matter that has been finally resolved.

I want to go back and mention the member for Southport, whom I missed. He is another councillor who resigned before standing for state parliament.

The bill amends section 172 of the act in the same way with respect to the inspection of records containing committee information. Brisbane City Council supported the proposal; however, in its submission to the parliamentary committee it identified concerns with the proposed definition of ‘committee information’. The committee report notes that the department advised these issues were under consideration, and the Crisafulli government will move amendments to the bill to address the concerns raised by Brisbane City Council. The amendments facilitate deliberation and enable good decision-making through civic cabinet through open and frank discussions between members so they can have those discussions without fear and without favour.

The approach recognises the similarities between the executive decision-making powers of state and civic cabinets, including the Westminster tradition of collective responsibility for decisions. By promoting robust decision-making and good governance, the amendments align with the purpose of the City of Brisbane Act, which includes providing for a system of local government in Brisbane that is accountable, effective, efficient and sustainable. The local government principles provided for in section 4 of the act include decision-making in the public interest and good governance of, and by, local government.

I want to address some of the comments that suggested the bill was rushed during the December-January period and that this is not consistent with an open and transparent government. May I take the opportunity to once again thank the committee and the committee members for their thorough examination of the bill and to remind members opposite of the facts.

The bill was referred to the committee on 20 November 2025. The reporting date was 30 January 2026—a 10-week inquiry period which, even considering the Christmas period, does not equate to the bill being rushed through. The inquiryprocess comprising the consideration of 68 submissions, a written briefing, two departmental briefings and a public hearing with eight key stakeholders cannot be described as rushed through. Further, there was a robust consultation process prior to the introduction of the bill with manyof the stakeholders, so keystakeholders were informed wellahead of the committee processes about the potential amendments.

I might turn to some of the objectives of the amendments: firstly to provide a regulation-making power to prescribe additional persons as ‘related parties’. They also insert transitional provisions for amendments in the bill to the Local Government Electoral Act 2011 about training requirements, election material and postal ballot applications. The amendments clarify the scope of document disclosure requirements for the Brisbane City Council and insert amendments to the Right to Information Act 2029 to provide that documents of the Brisbane City Council’s Establishment and Coordination Committee are exempt information for a period of time. The amendments also make minor changes to the local government employee superannuation provisions in the Local Government Act 2009 and the Local Government Regulation 2012 to align with the Commonwealth Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Act.

(Time expired)

Question put—That the bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Detail

Clause 1, as read, agreed to.

Clause 2—

Ms LEAHY (8.51 pm): I seek leave to move amendments outside the long title of the bill.

Leave granted.

Ms LEAHY: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name— 1 Clause 2 (Commencement)

Page 12, after line 6—

insert—

(1) The following provisions commence on 1 July 2026—

(a) part 4, division 2A;

(b) part 5, division 2A. 2 Clause 2 (Commencement)

Page 12, line 7, before ‘The’—

insert—

(2)

I table a copy of the amendments to the bill, explanatory notes and a statement of compatibility with human rights. Tabled paper: Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, amendments to be moved by Hon. Ann Leahy [290]. Tabled paper: Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes to Hon. Ann Leahy’s amendments [291]. Tabled paper: Local Government (Empowering Councils) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, statement of compatibility with human rights contained within Hon. Ann Leahy’s amendments [292].

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 7, as read, agreed to.

Clause 8—