The bill goes to the very heart of our democracy. It will impose unprecedented constraints on the ability of a group of people to participate fully in civic life. That is what it will do. It is of profound regret to me that we have come to this position. We have had 10 years of Labor rule in this state and we have had 10 years of decline of standards in public life. The standards of many ALP councillors in particular have now sunk so low — and the Brimbank report is clear evidence of that — that the Ombudsman had no alternative but to make the recommendation that he did, that the Local Government Act be amended to disqualify ministerial advisers, parliamentary advisers and electorate officers from being elected or remaining a councillor. Under Labor the relationship between elected officials of the two spheres of government in some parts of the state has become so corrupt that the Ombudsman had to suggest that this Parliament radically circumscribe people’s democratic rights, the democratic rights of a whole class of citizens.

After the Brimbank report came out, the Premier made a promise which I am sure most people will remember. He promised that he would implement every recommendation in the report. The relevant recommendation from the Ombudsman was that:

That was the recommendation that was made. It was not to allow them to go on leave to stand or to otherwise take time off to stand. Taking leave does not mean leaving employment, and yet that is how that promise is being translated in this legislation. That is the get‑out clause. Simply put, a person can now take leave on the day nominations close and resign if they are elected. That is not the intent of Ombudsman’s recommendation. Anyone who has ever run for public office knows that you need to do a great deal of work and often generate a lot of material before nominations close. Under this bill that work can still be done by people while they are employed by state or federal members of Parliament. That was clearly not the intent.

All the benefits of working within the parliamentary system — which of course should not be abused, but we know from the Brimbank report they have been again and again — all the entitlements, all the privileges and all that information are available to these candidates. They take leave on the day they nominate, and they have all the information. That was not the intention.

The proposed amendment to the Local Government Act is consistent with the approach taken by the government. It claims full compliance, and yet it relies on semantic distinctions — some might call them weasel words — to get past the difficulty. Quite frankly you have to say that the cynicism — the self‑serving approach — is, if not breathtaking, very effective.

I will speak briefly on the detail of the bill. Essentially it adds two new sections, 28A and 28B. Under section 28A a person is subject to automatic disqualification as a councillor if they are a member of the Parliament of Victoria, of the commonwealth or of another state or territory, or if they are a parliamentary adviser, a ministerial officer or an electorate officer to any members of any of the parliaments to which I have already referred. They are also disqualified if they are a member of another council in Victoria — I am not quite sure how that works; whether you simply do not get elected to the second one or whether you are disqualified from both, but I think it is a minor detail — or if they are a member of a council in another state or territory.

Then there is the get‑out clause, new subsection 28A(2). The government would have us believe that going on leave is the same as resigning. Going on leave does not mean cessation of employment; it never did. It is a straight out con, it is a straight out failure to comply with the intent.

Mr Wynne interjected.

Mr MORRIS — It is a straight out con, absolutely. Then we get to new subsection 28B, the sacking clause. Let us talk about what it is. It is the sacking clause. Anyone to whom subsection 28A(1) applies will be sacked seven days after royal assent is given to this bill. They will not be sacked because they are doing the wrong thing, or for formal misconduct, or because they are mixing with inappropriate people. We know that under this government you do not even get sacked if you are a councillor and you fail to declare an interest and you vote on an issue. Under this legislation you get sacked as a councillor because of the job you have. That is all it is.

The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee had quite a bit to say on the bill. Obviously I will not go through its comments in detail, but two points are worth making, both relating to the statement of compatibility. The committee said the claim in the statement of compatibility that there are no reasonably available alternatives does not satisfy the argument. There should have been an explanation from the minister as to why no alternatives are reasonably available. Simply a statement of alleged fact — an assertion — is not adequate. The other point raised by the committee was that the statement of compatibility claims this is not retrospective. That is just plain laughable. This is clearly retrospective.

Unfortunately, by the time the committee writes to the minister and the minister writes back, the legislation is through the Parliament. You have to ask: what on earth do we have this Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities for? It is window‑dressing. If anyone needed their rights protected, it is these councillors. Once again, it is failing to have any effect.

Briefly, it might be useful to look at the people who are affected or who would have been affected by this legislation, had it been in place. A present day councillor, Cr Tim Smith of Stonnington City Council, works in Frankston for Bruce Billson, the federal member for Dunkley. There is no possible overlap, there is no possible conflict of interest, but he is gone as soon as this bill receives royal assent. My predecessor as member for Mornington, Robin Cooper, served as a councillor for a number of months after being elected to this place, as did Mr Vogels, who is now a member for Western Victoria Region in the other house but was first elected to this place.

There was also a councillor with the Abercrombie shire in New South Wales from 1933 to 1947 who served in the commonwealth Parliament, and for a number of years as Prime Minister, while remaining a councillor. His name was Ben Chifley. Under this legislation he would not have been able to continue to hold office as a councillor.

Victoria already has good, effective laws that would have dealt with these issues, had they been enforced. It does not matter what laws we make in this place, if the government of the day does not enforce them there will be these problems. The Ombudsman recognised that a recommendation had to be made, and I do not criticise him for it. But he has endeavoured to avoid a conflict by saying, ‘These people cannot be in this situation’. If the laws we have were enforced and if people knew they had to do the right thing, this situation would not have arisen. They would not be able to get away with something for 10 years and then conclude that the laws do not apply. The whole government should be totally ashamed of itself.