Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2024
  4. Strelow v Councillor Conduct Tribunal - [2024] QCAT 175

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Strelow v Councillor Conduct Tribunal[2024] QCAT 175

Strelow v Councillor Conduct Tribunal[2024] QCAT 175

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Strelow v Councillor Conduct Tribunal & Anor [2024] QCAT 175

PARTIES:

margaret fay strelow

(applicant)

v

councillor conduct tribunal

independent assessor

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR061-21

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

30 April 2024

HEARING DATE:

27 March 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Rinaudo AM

Member Gordon

ORDERS:

  1. The decision made by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal on 2 July 2020 that Margaret Fay Strelow engaged in misconduct by failing to record on the register of interests hospitality benefit received from the Adani Group during a trade delegation to India in March 2017 is set aside.
  2. The penalty imposed by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal on 9 November 2020 is set aside. 
  3. The decision is substituted that Margaret Fay Strelow did not engage in misconduct by failing to record on the register of interests hospitality benefit received from the Adani Group during a trade delegation to India in March 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT – REGULATION AND ADMINISTRATION – COUNCILLORS AND MEMBERS – RIGHTS, DUTIES AND INCIDENTS OF OFFICE – DISQUALIFICATION FROM VOTING – STATUTORY DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS – where the Mayor of Rockhampton was part of an official trade delegation to India and received hospitality at that time paid for by the Adani Group – where the Independent Assessor complained to the Councillor Conduct Tribunal that the Mayor should have entered the hospitality received on the register of interests – the meaning of ‘interest’, ‘financial interest’, ‘non-financial interest’ and ‘conflict with duties’ in schedule 5, section 7 of the relevant provision – whether the Mayor had engaged in misconduct by failing to enter the hospitality in the register of interests under that provision

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 7, s 14, s 14A, s 14B, s 35C

Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), s 4, s 12, s 171B, s 172, s 173, s 176

Local Government Regulation 2012, s 291, schedule 5 s 17

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20

Case (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 12

CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 76

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337

Independent Assessor v Heath CCT F19/6510 6 February 2020

Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70

Sloane v Sambell [1931] VLR 393

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Lynette Galvin, solicitor, of Journey Family Lawyers

Respondent:

Camille Conaghan, lawyer

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    This is a review of a decision made by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal (CCT) that Margaret Strelow, then the Mayor of Rockhampton, had engaged in misconduct by failing to enter on the register of interests certain hospitality benefits received from the Adani Group during a trade delegation to India in March 2017.
  2. [2]
    The CCT made its decision in July 2020.  Our hearing of the review was nearly four years later, and seven years after the alleged misconduct.  We have decided that Ms Strelow was not required to enter the Adani hospitality on the register of interests, and therefore she did not engage in any misconduct. 
  3. [3]
    Bearing in mind that Ms Strelow resigned as Mayor immediately after she received the penalty imposed by the CCT in November 2020, it is clearly highly regrettable that this matter has taken so long to be dealt with.  We received no information why this was the case so we cannot comment further on this.
  4. [4]
    We now consider the facts of the matter, consider the context of the statutory provisions, in particular the disclosure of interests regime as it applied to councillors at the time, and then consider whether Ms Strelow failed to comply with the statutory provisions about what should be entered on the register of interests.

The trade delegation

  1. [5]
    The trade delegation to India was part of an official visit by the Premier of Queensland Annastacia Palaszczuk to Singapore, London and India. 
  2. [6]
    The Indian leg included meeting with officers of the Adani Group.  Although the Adani Group had received approval for the development of the Carmichael Coal mine project in Queensland, it was yet to make a final decision whether to proceed with the project, and there were uncertainties about where the fly in fly out (FIFO) hubs would be situated.
  3. [7]
    The Premier wanted relevant Queensland Mayors to attend the delegation with her and to meet with the Adani Group.  There were eight mayors on the trade delegation and the reason for this was that the infrastructure required to support the mine, its workers and its produce spanned several regional council areas, as can be seen from decisions about these locations which had already been made by the Adani Group if the project were to proceed:[1]

Regional headquarter to be based in Townsville.

Remote Operations Centre in Townsville.

Rail and port operations headquarters in Bowen.

Mining services based in Mackay.

Rail maintenance and provisioning yard in the Mackay-Bowen region.

And project sourcing centres in Townsville, Charters Towers, Rockhampton, Emerald, Clermont and Moranbah.

  1. [8]
    Ms Strelow received an invitation to join the delegation by a letter from the Premier dated 24 February 2017.[2]  The letter said:

The primary focus of the trade mission is to continue to strengthen our trade ties as well as ongoing business, trade and investment relationships to support Queensland’s economic development.

As part of this delegation, I propose to meet with Mr Gautem Adani, Chairman and Founder of the Adani Group.

I hope you will be available to join the delegation next month.

My government will continue our global push for trade and investment opportunities to open doors and access mutually beneficial opportunities for Queensland.

  1. [9]
    On 7 March 2017 Rockhampton Regional Council resolved at an ordinary meeting to approve Ms Strelow joining the trade delegation in her capacity as Mayor, together with a council officer, the General Manager Regional Development and Aviation.[3]
  2. [10]
    Exactly what happened in the trade delegation needs to be pieced together from the agenda provided in the documents[4], the Premier’s report to Parliament of the actual visit,[5] and other information.[6] 
  3. [11]
    As well as the Premier, the trade delegation was made up of four officers from the Premier’s office, the Under Treasurer of the Queensland Treasury, and three officers from Trade and Investment Queensland, including the Trade and Investment Commissioner for India.  The eight Mayors attended with four council officers from various Queensland councils.  There were two ABC journalists and one journalist from the Townsville Bulletin.  There were also four security officers from the Queensland Police Service.
  4. [12]
    For the Mayors, Thursday 16 March 2017 was arrival day in Mumbai on various international flights, and in the evening there was a dinner at a hotel hosted by the Premier, together with the Australian High Commissioner to India, the Consul-General in Mumbai and the Trade and Investment Commissioner.
  5. [13]
    The next day, Friday 17 March 2017, the delegation flew from Mumbai airport to Bhuj airport in Gujarat, where they were met by the Chief Executive Officers of Adani Ports and SEZ Limited, Mundra Solar PV Ltd, and Adani Australia, and other officers from the Adani Group.  They were taken to Mundra Port by road and then to Mundra Special Economic Zone for a tour of a solar manufacturing plant and power plant where they had lunch with the Chair of the Adani Group.  The party then returned by road back to Bhuj Airport for the flight back to Mumbai.  The flights were scheduled flights paid for by the delegation and not by the Adani Group.
  6. [14]
    That evening there was a dinner for the Regional Mayors hosted by the Adani Board in another hotel.  The event summary states that:[7]

The dinner provided the opportunity to discuss the Carmichael Mine, which will create 5,000 direct jobs at peak of construction and more than 4,500 direct jobs at peak of operations.  At the dinner, each of the regional Mayors had the opportunity to raise issues with the members of the Adani Board.

  1. [15]
    After the dinner the party returned to their hotel for the night.
  2. [16]
    The next day, Saturday 18 March 2017 the Premier returned to Brisbane, but the Mayors transferred to Mumbai airport for an Adani private charter flight to Madurai, ready for a site visit to the Adani Group’s solar plant in Kamuthi said to be the world’s largest at the time.  The party had a briefing, a tour of the facility, and lunch, and then returned to Madurai airport for a flight to Chennai.  On arrival at Chennai the party were transported to an Adani Dinner for Mayors at a hotel in Chennai.  The plan was that the party would then fly back to Brisbane overnight via Singapore on scheduled international flights.
  3. [17]
    The charter flights on 18 March 2017 were needed because there were no available scheduled flights to suit the itinerary.[8]
  4. [18]
    At the time, the Adani Group had paid for the dinner in the hotel in the evening of 17 March 2017, and the transport on 18 March 2017 from Mumbai to the solar plant and then to Chennai, and the meals that day.  On 23 March 2017 the Adani Group informed the Councils concerned of the cost of these benefits per person, which they had calculated as $1,669.93.[9]  On 10 May 2019 the Adani Group raised an invoice to Rockhampton Regional Council for that amount.[10]  Very soon after the Council paid this amount to the Adani Group.[11]
  5. [19]
    Meanwhile, on 24 April 2017 Ms Strelow entered the value of the hospitality received from the Adani Group in Rockhampton Regional Council’s hospitality register.[12]  This register is the Council’s own register and is not the statutory register of interests under the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) (LGA) which forms the subject of the complaint against her.  Ms Strelow’s entry in the register described the hospitality as ‘visiting Adani’s headquarters in India.  Flights within India, ground transport and dinner’ with a value of $1,669.93. 
  6. [20]
    The complaint made against Ms Strelow by the Independent Assessor (the IA) is that the components of the trip which occurred on 18 March 2017 and which were paid for at the time by the Adani Group, that is the travel to and from the solar plant, the dinner in the evening, and the transport to and from that dinner, should have been entered on the register of interests under the LGA.  It is said that failure to make that entry was a breach of trust and misconduct.

The disclosure regime applying to councillors

  1. [21]
    We need to understand the register of interests under the LGA in the context of the other statutory provisions about disclosure of interests applying to councillors at the time of the alleged misconduct.  Here we have regard to the version of the LGA applying at the time of the alleged misconduct.  That is the 1 March 2017 version.  This is supplemented by the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) and the 2 December 2016 version applied at the time of the alleged misconduct.
  2. [22]
    There is a two-pronged approach requiring disclosures by councillors of their interests:
    1. a disclosure to be made if a matter is to be discussed at a meeting and the councillor has either:
      1. (i)
        a material person interest in the matter or
      1. (ii)
        a real or perceived conflict of interest in the matter;
    2. a disclosure to be made of an interest within 30 days of it arising; these will be disclosures in the register of interests in advance of any such meeting or decision being made. 
  3. [23]
    It is the second of these set out in (b) above, which Ms Strelow is said to have breached.
  4. [24]
    For a material personal interest in a matter to be discussed at a meeting, the councillor must inform the meeting of the interest and leave the meeting during the discussion and vote.[13]  A material personal interest is where either the councillor or another closely connected, stands to gain a benefit or suffer a loss depending on the decision made about the matter.[14]
  5. [25]
    For a conflict of interest in a matter to be discussed at a meeting, the councillor must inform the meeting of the personal interest in the matter and if the councillor continues to participate in the meeting explain how they intend to deal with the conflict.  The conflict should be dealt with in a transparent and accountable way.[15] 
  6. [26]
    In the version of the LGA which applies to this review, a conflict of interest for the purposes of the provisions applying to a matter to be discussed at a meeting is defined in section 173(2):
  1. A conflict of interest is a conflict between—
  1. a councillor’s personal interests; and
  1. the public interest; that might lead to a decision that is contrary to the public interest.
  1. [27]
    There are important exclusions from this definition for matters discussed at a meeting:
  1. However, a councillor does not have a conflict of interest in a matter—
  1. merely because of—
  1. an engagement with a community group, sporting club or similar organisation undertaken by the councillor in his or her capacity as a councillor; or
  1. membership of a political party; or
  1. membership of a community group, sporting club or similar organisation if the councillor is not an office holder for the group, club or organisation; or
  1. the councillor’s religious beliefs; or
  1. the councillor having been a student of a particular school or the councillor’s involvement with a school as parent of a student at the school; or
  1. if the councillor has no greater personal interest in the matter than that of other persons in the local government area.
  1. [28]
    The register of interests which is the subject of this complaint, performs a different role.  It should hold interests which could in the future give rise to a conflict should the Council need to make a decision about a matter.  As can be seen below when we discuss the register of interests provisions, councillors in many instances are required to enter interests on the register even if there is no connection whatsoever between that interest and Council business.

The aims of the statutory provisions

  1. [29]
    We need to understand the aim of the disclosure provisions properly to interpret them.  An analysis of the source of the provisions has helped us to understand this.  The provisions were first introduced in a form similar to those applying to this review in the Local Government Act 1993 (Qld), as supplemented by the Local Government Regulation 1994 (Qld).  So we start with the second reading of the Local Government Bill (which became the 1993 Act) in the Queensland Legislative Assembly on 18 November 1993 where the Hon T M Mackenroth, the Minister for Housing, Local Government of Planning moved:[16]

Each elected member will face a major new requirement after the elections in March 1994.  In its report on codes of conduct, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission recommended amendments to the Local Government Act to require councillors to register their interests and the interests of related persons on a similar basis as that which applies to members of the Legislative Assembly.  The proposed new Local Government Act therefore provides that a councillor must register financial and other personal interests and the interests of related persons, upon assuming office.

The Bill also provides that an elected member must not be present in a meeting or in the public gallery when a matter in which the member has a material personal interest is being considered.  A member convicted of voting while having a pecuniary interest in a matter can also be subject to severe penalties.  Further obligations are also placed on elected members not to act improperly.

The proposed legislation dealing with the registration of interests is an essential part of ensuring public confidence in the integrity of decision making in local government.  Such requirements are a fact of life for State parliamentarians and for elected representatives elsewhere in Australia.  It is an expectation the public now has of politicians at all levels.

  1. [30]
    In this speech the Minister made a reference to The Electoral and Administrative Review Commission report of May 1992.[17]  That report explained that it followed issues raised in the Report of the Fitzgerald Inquiry.  The Commission decided that the significant interests of Members of Local Authorities should be registered in the same manner and to the same extent as the interests of Members of the Legislative Assembly. 
  2. [31]
    In the speech the Minister also refers to this proposed alignment with the requirements of Members of the Legislative Assembly to register such interests.  These requirements were established by resolution of 27 November 1990.  The requirements are indeed very similar to those introduced for councillors in the 1993 Act and 1994 Regulation.[18]
  3. [32]
    The objects of the 1993 Act in section 3 included providing a framework for an effective, efficient and accountable system of local government in Queensland and recognising a jurisdiction of local government sufficient to allow a local government to take autonomous responsibility for the good rule and government of its area with a minimum of intervention by the State.
  4. [33]
    Section 177 of the 1993 Act contained important provisions about the councillor’s role.  It provided that a councillor represents, and in performing the role a councillor must serve, the overall public interest of the local government’s area.  If conflict arises between the public interest and the private interest of the councillor or another person, the councillor must give preference to the public interest.  And a councillor must ensure there is no conflict, or possible conflict, between the councillor’s private interest and the honest performance of the councillor’s role of serving the public interest.
  5. [34]
    The principles stated in these provisions have been maintained in the version of the LGA applying at the time of Ms Strelow’s alleged misconduct but were in a different form.  We have recited the relevant provisions below, that is sections 3, 4, 12 and 176, as supplemented by the two-pronged disclosure of interest provisions referred to above.
  6. [35]
    Since then, further changes have been made to the relevant provisions.  Sections 3 and 4 remain the same.  Section 12 has been amended slightly but not in a way which would affect this decision if it had applied.  Councillor conduct has moved from Chapter 6 Division 6 (starting at section 176) to a new Chapter 5A.  The purpose of the provisions is now described slightly differently.  There is a different definition of misconduct,[19] different processes for dealing with complaints, and there is provision for the Minister to make a code of conduct, and for model procedures to be established to deal with unsuitable meeting conduct.

The process leading up to the finding of misconduct by Ms Strelow

  1. [36]
    In the period between Ms Strelow’s alleged misconduct and the hearing in the CCT there were changes to the enforcement procedures for the register of interests.
  2. [37]
    Until 3 December 2018 the Department of Local Government, Racing and Multicultural Affairs (DLGRMA) would investigate and deal with such matters and bring breaches to the attention of the Chief Executive Officer of the council concerned.  There was a regional conduct review panel which could hear and decide a complaint of misconduct by a councillor and a Local Government Remuneration and Discipline Tribunal to deal with the most serious complaints.[20]  There was no right of appeal or review of decisions made by these bodies.[21]
  3. [38]
    From 3 December 2018 the Office of the Independent Assessor replaced the DLGRMA, and could refer a complaint to the newly established Councillor Conduct Tribunal (CCT), which would hear and decide the complaint and if it was found that a councillor had engaged in misconduct, take action to discipline the councillor.  A right of external review to QCAT was introduced.
  4. [39]
    The complaint against Ms Strelow straddled these changes.  It was originally investigated by the DLGRMA who on 8 June 2018 formally brought it to the attention of the Chief Executive Officer of the Council, Mr Pardon.  The DLGRMA required either the register to be amended, or Ms Strelow to make a statutory declaration that the particulars in the register are a true record of fact.[22]
  5. [40]
    Having received the letter, Mr Pardon sought legal advice from King & Co Solicitors, as to whether it was correct that Ms Strelow should record the Adani hospitality on the register of interests.[23]  The advice was that Ms Strelow did not have to do so.  Accordingly the Council wrote to the Department with Ms Strelow’s statutory declaration made on 4 July 2018 stating that the register was a true record of fact.[24]  Soon afterwards the DLGRMA also expressed the view in writing in general terms that hospitality by a councillor received at an event as part of their role with Council did not need to be entered on the register of interests.[25]
  6. [41]
    Ms Strelow has told us that at that point she believed that the matter had been finalised.[26]
  7. [42]
    But the matter was raised again by the newly established Office of the Independent Assessor.  What happened was that the Crime and Corruption Commission had referred the matter to the IA on 17 December 2018, and on 7 January 2019 the IA contacted Ms Strelow to say that misconduct was suspected.[27]  The letter offered two ways for Ms Strelow to deal it.  One was for her to accept the complaint as correct, in which case the CCT ‘may take into account your demonstrated insight and early co-operation in determining what sanction may be appropriate’.  The second way was to dispute the complaint which would result in an investigation with a possible referral to the local government and from there to the CCT.
  8. [43]
    Ms Strelow instructed King & Co to respond to the IA.  They made submissions in a letter dated 19 March 2019 defending her position.[28]
  9. [44]
    On 7 May 2019 the IA wrote to the CEO of the Council, Mr Pardon, in a very similar way to the letter of 8 June 2018 from the DLGRMA.  Again, Ms Strelow made a statutory declaration that the particulars in the register are a true record of fact.[29]
  10. [45]
    Although Ms Strelow was given an opportunity to respond to the IA’s investigation, which she did again through her solicitors,[30] the IA decided to refer a complaint to the CCT.  As per directions issued by the CCT on 10 June 2020, the CCT heard the matter ‘on the documents’.
  11. [46]
    The decision of the CCT made on 2 July 2020 was that:[31]

The Tribunal has determined on the balance of probabilities the allegation that, between 16 April 2017 and 8 June 2019 Councillor Margaret Strelow, the Mayor and Councillor of the Rockhampton Regional Council, engaged in misconduct as defined in section 176(3)(b)(ii) of the Act, as her conduct involved a breach of trust placed in her as councillor, has been sustained.

  1. [47]
    The references to the dates of 16 April 2017 and 8 June 2019 are to the ending of the 30 days in which to enter the hospitality on the register of interests, and to about the date of the second statutory declaration made by Ms Strelow. 
  2. [48]
    The CCT made orders and recommendations as disciplinary action on 4 November 2020 as follows:

The Tribunal orders pursuant to section 150AR(1) of the Act that;

  1. Pursuant to section 150AR(1)(b)(i) Councillor Strelow make an apology at the next Council meeting that she has engaged in misconduct.
  2. Pursuant to section 150AR(1)(b)(iii) and within 21 days from the date of this order, Councillor Strelow update her ROI for the period 16 April 2017 to 8 June 2019 to record the hospitality benefit received from Adani, and attend in-service training relating to the completion of registers of interests that addresses the type of interests that must be recorded pursuant to Schedule 5 of the Regulation.
  3. In-service training to be undertaken within 90 days of receipt of this order by the Councillor, the costs of the training to be paid at the expense of the Councillor (s 150AR(1)(b)(iii)).  The Independent Assessor to be notified by the CEO upon the completion of the training.

The tribunal’s role in this review

  1. [49]
    Our role is to find the correct and preferable decision, by hearing and deciding the review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.[32]  In making our decision on review we have all the powers and obligations of the CCT but we are not restricted to the evidence before it.  So this is not an appeal and we are not looking for errors in the decision of the CCT.  Effectively we are hearing the IA’s complaint afresh.
  2. [50]
    This means that although Ms Strelow says that the CCT proceeded on the wrong factual basis this is irrelevant for our purposes since we will be making our own findings of fact to reach the correct and preferable decision.

The elements of the IA’s complaint that we need to consider

  1. [51]
    The components of the trip which the IA says Ms Strelow should have entered on the register of interests all occurred on Saturday 18 March 2017 and were all initially paid for by the Adani Group.  They were:
    1. the flight from Mumbai Airport to Madurai airport,
    2. transport to and from the Kamuthi solar plant,
    3. the flight from Madurai airport to Chennai Airport,
    4. dinner for Mayors in a hotel in Chennai; and
    5. transport to and from that dinner.
  2. [52]
    In summary, the complaint made by the IA was:[33]

It is alleged that between 16 April 2017 and 30 August 2019, Councillor Margaret Strelow, the Mayor and Councillor of the Rockhampton Regional Council, engaged in misconduct as defined in section 176(3)(b)(ii) of the Local Government Act 2009, in that the conduct involved a breach of the trust placed in her as a councillor in that it was inconsistent with local government principle 4(2)(e) of the Act as being ethical and legal ‘behaviour of councillors and local government employees’ in that Councillor Strelow failed to comply with section 171B of the Act.

  1. [53]
    The failure to comply with section 171B of the LGA was particularised as (having received the hospitality from Adani Enterprises Pty Ltd in India):[34]

Councillor Strelow did not inform the CEO of the particulars of the interest namely the hospitality received from Adani via a form 2 within 30 days after the interest arose.

The alleged conduct could amount to misconduct on the basis that Councillors have a legal obligation under section 171B of the Act to inform the CEO of the particulars of their interests or changes to their interests within 30 days of the interest arising or the change happening.

Section 291 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 sets out the particulars required to be contained in a register of interests.  Councillor Strelow failed to comply with section 171B of the Act in that (her Forms 2) did not inform the CEO of the particulars of the hospitality interest as required by section 17 of schedule 5 of the Regulation.  As a consequence, Councillor Strelow’s register of interest, as maintained by the CEO, was inaccurate for the period from 16 April 2017 to 30 August 2019.

Section 17 of schedule 5 of the Regulation relates to other financial interests or non-financial interests.  Section 17(2) of schedule 5 defines ‘interest’ of the relevant person, to mean a financial or non-financial interest of which the relevant person is aware, and that raises, appears to raise, or could raise, a conflict between the relevant person's duty under the Act and the holder of the interest.

The receipt of hospitality by Councillor Strelow could raise a conflict of interest between the Councillor’s duty under the Act to make a decision in the public interests and her personal interests as a recipient of the hospitality.

  1. [54]
    It is common ground that Ms Strelow received the Adani hospitality on official business, and therefore did not have to disclose the hospitality on the register of interests under section 13 of schedule 5.[35]  We agree with this.  Section 13 defines a sponsored hospitality benefit as travel or accommodation received other than in an official capacity where another person has contributed to the cost of it.[36]  It is clear that Ms Strelow received the travel and accommodation in an official capacity.  She was in attendance as Mayor of Rockhampton and not on a personal basis.  The trip was organised by the Premier’s office and she attended on the invitation of the Premier.  She was given approval to attend the trip on behalf of the Council by resolution.[37]  Following the trade delegation a report was made to Parliament.[38]
  2. [55]
    As for the meals, some of the meals consumed by Ms Strelow during the trade delegation would have been ancillary to the accommodation and therefore would be within the official capacity exception in section 15.  One of the dinners, that is the dinner for Mayors in a hotel in Chennai on 18 March 2017, would not be within section 15 at all.
  3. [56]
    The reference in the complaint to ‘misconduct as defined in section 176(3)(b)(ii)’ of the LGA was to ‘breach of the trust placed in the councillor’.  Since this needs to be understood in the context of the statute, we recite the relevant parts of section 176 which applied at the relevant time:

176What this division is about

  1. This division is about dealing with complaints about the conduct and performance of councillors, to ensure that—
  1. appropriate standards of conduct and performance are maintained; and
  1. a councillor who engages in misconduct or inappropriate conduct is disciplined.
  1. In summary—
  1. misconduct is dealt with by the regional conduct review panel or tribunal; and
  1. inappropriate conduct is dealt with by the Mayor or the department’s chief executive.
  1. Misconduct is conduct, or a conspiracy or attempt to engage in conduct, of or by a councillor—
  1. that adversely affects, or could adversely affect, (either directly or indirectly) the honest and impartial performance of the councillor’s responsibilities or exercise of the councillor’s powers; or
  1. that is or involves—
  1. the performance of the councillor’s responsibilities, or the exercise of the councillor’s powers, in a way that is not honest or is not impartial; or
  1. a breach of the trust placed in the councillor; or
  1. a misuse of information or material acquired in or in connection with the performance of the councillor’s responsibilities, whether the misuse is for the benefit of the councillor or someone else; or
  1. a failure by the councillor to comply with a direction to leave a meeting of the local government or its committees by the chairperson presiding at the meeting; or
  1. a refusal by the councillor to comply with a direction or order of the regional conduct review panel or tribunal about the councillor; or
  1. that is a repeat of inappropriate conduct that the Mayor or the department’s chief executive has ordered to be referred to the regional conduct review panel under section 181(2); or
  1. that contravenes section 171(3) or 173(4).
  1. Inappropriate conduct is conduct that is not appropriate conduct for a representative of a local government, but is not misconduct, including for example—
  1. a councillor failing to comply with the local government’s procedures; or
  1. a councillor behaving in an offensive or disorderly way in a meeting of the local government or any of its committees.

subsections (5) to (9) not reproduced here

  1. [57]
    The reference in the complaint to inconsistency with the local government principle in section 4(2)(e) of the LGA can be understood from the section 4 as a whole:

4Local government principles underpin this Act

  1. To ensure the system of local government is accountable, effective, efficient and sustainable, Parliament requires—
  1. anyone who is performing a responsibility under this Act to do so in accordance with the local government principles; and
  1. any action that is taken under this Act to be taken in a way that—
  1. is consistent with the local government principles; and
  1. provides results that are consistent with the local government principles, in as far as the results are within the control of the person who is taking the action.
  1. The local government principles are—
  1. transparent and effective processes, and decision-making in the public interest; and
  1. sustainable development and management of assets and infrastructure, and delivery of effective services; and
  1. democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement; and
  1. good governance of, and by, local government; and
  1. ethical and legal behaviour of councillors and local government employees.
  1. [58]
    This is supplemented by section 12:

12Responsibilities of councillors

  1. A councillor must represent the current and future interests of the residents of the local government area.
  1. All councillors of a local government have the same responsibilities, but the mayor has some extra responsibilities.
  1. All councillors have the following responsibilities—
  1. ensuring the local government—
  1. discharges its responsibilities under this Act; and
  1. achieves its corporate plan; and
  1. complies with all laws that apply to local governments;
  1. providing high quality leadership to the local government and the community;
  1. participating in council meetings, policy development, and decision-making, for the benefit of the local government area;
  1. being accountable to the community for the local government’s performance.
  1. The mayor has the following extra responsibilities—
  1. leading and managing meetings of the local government at which the mayor is the chairperson, including managing the conduct of the participants at the meetings;
  1. preparing a budget to present to the local government;
  1. leading, managing, and providing strategic direction to, the chief executive officer in order to achieve the high quality administration of the local government;
  1. directing the chief executive officer and senior executive employees, in accordance with the local government’s policies;
  1. conducting a performance appraisal of the chief executive officer, at least annually, in the way that is decided by the local government (including as a member of a committee, for example);
  1. ensuring that the local government promptly provides the Minister with the information about the local government area, or the local government, that is requested by the Minister;
  1. being a member of each standing committee of the local government;
  1. representing the local government at ceremonial or civic functions.
  1. A councillor who is not the mayor may perform the mayor’s extra responsibilities only if the mayor delegates the responsibility to the councillor.
  1. When performing a responsibility, a councillor must serve the overall public interest of the whole local government area.
  1. [59]
    The reference in the complaint to section 171B can be understood from the whole of that section which sets out the requirement for the register of interests:

171BObligation of councillor to correct register of interests

  1. This section applies if—
  1. a councillor has an interest that must be recorded in a register of interests under a regulation in relation to the councillor or a person who is related to the councillor; or
  1. there is a change to an interest recorded in a register of interests under a regulation in relation to a councillor or a person who is related to a councillor.

Note—

See the Local Government Regulation 2012, chapter 8, part 5 (Register of interests).

  1. The councillor must, in the approved form, inform the chief executive officer of the particulars of the interest or the change to the interest within 30 days after the interest arises or the change happens.

Maximum penalty—

  1. if the councillor fails to comply with subsection (2) intentionally — 100 penalty units; or
  1. otherwise — 85 penalty units.

Note—

Under section 153(5), an offence against subsection (2) is an integrity offence if a person is convicted of an offence to which a penalty under maximum penalty, paragraph (a) applies.

  1. For subsection (1), a person is related to a councillor if—
  1. the person is the councillor’s spouse; or
  1. the person is totally or substantially dependent on the councillor and—
  1. the person is the councillor’s child; or
  1. the person’s affairs are so closely connected with the affairs of the councillor that a benefit derived by the person, or a substantial part of it, could pass to the councillor.
  1. [60]
    We also note that section 3 of the LGA as it applied at the time of Ms Strelow’s alleged misconduct states the purpose of the LGA, one purpose being to provide for a system of local government in Queensland that is accountable, effective, efficient and sustainable.

What needs to be disclosed on the register of interests

  1. [61]
    Central to the complaint, and therefore central to this review, is what schedule 5 section 17 requires to be entered on the register.  Again, it is necessary to construe section 17 in the context of the LGA and the regulation as a whole, but also by considering the whole of schedule 5 and the section of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) which gives it force:

291 Contents of registers of interests

  1. The register of interests of each of the following persons must contain the financial and non-financial particulars mentioned in schedule 5 for an interest held by the person—
  1. a councillor;
  1. the chief executive officer;
  1. a senior executive employee;
  1. a person who is related to a councillor, the chief executive officer or a senior executive employee.
  1. However, the register of interests of a person who is related to a councillor, the chief executive officer or a senior executive employee need not include any interest that is—
  1. held jointly, or in common, with the councillor, chief executive officer or senior executive employee; and
  1. included in the register of interests of the councillor, chief executive officer or senior executive employee.
  1. Nothing in subsection (1) requires a register of interests to include any of the following—
  1. the number or monetary value of shares;
  1. the monetary value of an investment or interest;
  1. the full street address of land;
  1. the amount of a liability, donation or other income;
  1. the account number of, or amounts held in, accounts held with a financial institution;
  1. the monetary value of accommodation, an asset, a gift or travel.
  1. To remove any doubt, it is declared that a person holds an interest if the person holds the interest alone or jointly, or in common, with another person.

Schedule 5 Financial and non-financial particulars for registers of interests

section 291(1)

1  Definitions for sch 5

In this schedule—

controlling interest, in shares in a corporation, for a person, means the person is able—

  1. to dispose of, or to exercise control over the disposal of, the shares; or
  1. if the shares are voting shares—to exercise, or to control the exercise of, a voting power attached to the shares. debenture see the Corporations Act, section 9. holding company, for a corporation, see the Corporations Act, section 9. nominee corporation means a corporation whose principal business is holding marketable securities as a trustee or nominee. relevant person means any of the following persons—
  1. a councillor;
  1. a chief executive officer;
  1. a senior executive employee;
  1. a person who is related to a councillor, chief executive officer or senior executive employee.

securities see the Corporations Act, section 9.

subsidiary, for a corporation, see the Corporations Act, section 9. 

2 Shareholding or controlling interest in corporation

The particulars required for each corporation in which a relevant person is a shareholder or has a controlling interest in shares are—

  1. the corporation’s name; and
  1. if the shareholding or interest is a controlling interest in the corporation—details of the shareholdings of the corporation in any other corporation; and
  1. if the shareholding or interest is held in a proprietary company that is the holding company of another corporation—
  1. details of the holding company’s investments; and
  1. the name of any corporation that is a subsidiary of the holding company; and
  1. the name of any corporation that is a subsidiary of any corporation that is the holding company’s subsidiary; and
  1. if the relevant person is a councillor or a person related to a councillor—the investments or other interests in property held by the subsidiaries; and
  1. if the relevant person is a councillor, or a person related to a councillor, and the shareholding or interest is held in a proprietary company—the investments or other interests in property, other than those mentioned in paragraph (c)(iv), held by the company.

3  Officer of corporation

The particulars required for each corporation of which a relevant person is an officer are—

  1. the corporation’s name; and
  1. the nature of the office held; and
  1. the nature of the corporation’s activities.

4  Beneficial interest in trust or nominee corporation

The particulars required for each family or business trust or nominee corporation in which a relevant person holds a beneficial interest are—

  1. the name of, or a description sufficient to identify, the trust, or the corporation’s name; and
  1. the nature of the activities of the trust or corporation; and
  1. the nature of the interest.

5  Self managed superannuation fund

  1. This section applies to each self managed superannuation fund for which a councillor or a person related to a councillor is—
  1. a trustee; or
  1. if the trustee of the fund is a corporation—a director of the trustee.
  1. The particulars required for each self managed superannuation fund are––
  1. the name or a description of the fund; and
  1. the nature of the activities of the fund; and
  1. the investments or other interests in property held, of which the councillor or person is aware, by the fund.
  1. In this section—

director see the Corporations Act, section 9.

self managed superannuation fund see the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cwlth), section 10.

6  Trustee for trust

The particulars required for each family or business trust of which a relevant person is a trustee are—

  1. the name of, or a description sufficient to identify, the trust; and
  1. the nature of the trust’s activities; and
  1. the name of each beneficiary of the trust, or, if the trust is a discretionary trust, each class of persons who may benefit under the trust.

7  Partnership and joint venture

The particulars required for each partnership or joint venture in which a relevant person has an interest are—

  1. the name of, or a description sufficient to identify, the partnership or joint venture; and
  1. the nature of the partnership’s or joint venture’s activities; and
  1. the nature of the interest.

8  Land

The particulars required for all land in which a relevant person has an interest are—

  1. the suburb or locality of the land; and
  1. the approximate size of the land; and
  1. the purpose for which the land is, and is intended to be, used; and
  1. the nature of the interest.

9  Liability

  1. The particulars required for each liability, other than department store and credit card accounts, of a relevant person, trust or private company are—
  1. the nature of the liability; and
  1. the name of the creditor.
  1. However, subsection (1) does not apply if the debt—
  1. is for an amount of $10,000 or less; or
  1. arises from the supply of goods or services supplied in the ordinary course of—
  1. the relevant person’s business; or
  1. the business of the trust or private company.
  1. In this section—

private company means a proprietary company in which a relevant person holds securities.

trust means a trust of which a relevant person is a beneficiary.

10  Debentures and similar investments

The particulars required for each debenture or similar investment held by a relevant person are—

  1. the nature of the investment; and
  1. the name of the corporation in which the investment is made; and
  1. the nature of the business of the corporation.

11  Savings and investment accounts

The particulars required for each savings or investment account of a relevant person held with a financial institution are—

  1. the nature of the account; and
  1. the name of the institution.

12  Gifts totalling more than $500

  1. The particulars required for each gift, or all gifts totalling, more than $500 in amount or value given to a relevant person by another person (a donor) are—
  1. the donor’s name; and
  1. a description of the gift.
  1. Subsection (1) does not apply to a gift from a donor who is—
  1. a person who is related to the relevant person; or
  1. someone else who is related by blood or marriage to the relevant person; or
  1. the relevant person’s friend.
  1. However, the relevant person must be satisfied there can not be the perception of a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, relating to the gift that could conflict with a duty the person has under the Act.
  1. A gift is—
  1. the transfer of money, other property or other benefit—
  1. without consideration; or
  1. for a consideration substantially less than full consideration; or
  1. a loan of money or other property made on a permanent or indefinite basis, other than an overdraft facility.

13  Sponsored hospitality benefit

  1. The particulars required for each sponsored hospitality benefit received by a relevant person are—
  1. the source of the contribution for the travel or accommodation; and
  1. the purpose of the benefit.
  1. A person receives a sponsored hospitality benefit if—
  1. the person, other than in an official capacity—
  1. undertakes travel; or
  1. uses accommodation; and
  1. a contribution, whether financial or non-financial, for the cost of the travel or accommodation is made by another person.
  1. However, a person does not receive a sponsored hospitality benefit if—
  1. the contribution mentioned in subsection (2)(b) was made by the person’s spouse, other family member or friend; and
  1. there could not be a perception of a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, relating to the contribution.

14  Membership of political party, body or association, or trade or professional organisation

The particulars required for each political party, body or association, or trade or professional organisation, of which a relevant person is a member are its name and address.

15  Other assets with value of more than $5000

  1. The particulars required for each other asset of a relevant person with a value of more than $5000 are sufficient details of the asset to identify it.
  1. This section does not apply to the following—
  1. household and personal effects;
  1. a motor vehicle used mainly for personal use;
  1.  superannuation entitlements.

16  Other sources of income of more than $500 a year

The particulars required for each other source of income of more than $500 a year received by the following are sufficient details of the income to identify it—

  1. a relevant person;
  1. a proprietary company, or trust, in which the relevant person holds securities.

17  Other financial or non-financial interests

  1. The particulars required for each other interest of a relevant person are sufficient details of the interest to identify it.
  1. In this section— interest, of the relevant person, means a financial or non-financial interest—
  1. of which the relevant person is aware; and
  1. that raises, appears to raise, or could raise, a conflict between the relevant person’s duty under the Act and the holder of the interest.

The construction of section 17 – ‘other financial or non-financial interests’

  1. [62]
    Section 17 is a sweep up provision which requires an interest held by a councillor of which the councillor is aware, to be identified on the register of interests if the interest raises, appears to raise, or could raise a conflict with the councillor’s duty under the LGA.
  2. [63]
    Subsection (2) seems to define ‘interest’ for the purposes of the section:
  1. In this section—

interest, of the relevant person, means a financial or non-financial interest—

  1. of which the relevant person is aware; and
  1. that raises, appears to raise, or could raise, a conflict between the relevant person’s duty under the Act and the holder of the interest.
  1. [64]
    At the time of the alleged misconduct, the word ‘interest’ was not defined in either the LGA or the Regulation, but as from 12 October 2020 this definition was added to the LGA:[39]

interest means a financial or other interest

  1. [65]
    At the same time as this definition was added, section 17(2) in the Regulation was amended by replacing the words ‘a financial or non-financial interest’ by the words ‘an interest’.  The net result therefore was that the definition of interest which was previously in section 17(2) at the time of Ms Strelow’s alleged misconduct was moved to the definitions in the LGA instead.  Effectively there was no overall change to the provision.
  2. [66]
    It can be seen however, that the definition is a circular one.  In the definition:

interest is a financial or non-financial interest

It must be that the expression ‘non-financial interest’ bears its ordinary meaning and is not defined by the section. 

  1. [67]
    The ordinary meaning of non-financial interest is ‘an interest which is non-financial’.  In the same way, the ordinary meaning of financial interest is ‘an interest which is financial’.
  2. [68]
    In both cases it can be seen that for section 17 to be engaged there must be an interest, which can be a financial or non-financial interest, of the councillor of a type described in paragraphs (a) and (b). 
  3. [69]
    Whether section 17 is engaged for a councillor therefore, depends on:
    1. whether the councillor holds a financial or non-financial interest of which they are aware; and
    2. whether the interest raises, appears to raise, or could raise, a conflict with the councillor’s duty under the LGA.
  4. [70]
    It is convenient to analyse these two requirements separately although they can also be regarded as merging into one.

What is a financial or non-financial interest in this context

  1. [71]
    There have been some submissions from the parties about what appears to be a requirement in section 291 that an interest is ‘held’ which also seems to be the case from the word ‘holder’ in section 17(2)(b).  A financial interest is one which can be ‘held’ in the sense that the holding is proprietary.  But a non-financial interest will not be held in the same sense.  This shows that the words ‘held’ and ‘holder’ are used in a wide sense.
  2. [72]
    We would say that an interest which is non-financial as these expressions are used in section 17, could include an activity, pursuit, involvement or following.  In submissions made on Ms Strelow’s behalf, this type of interest was called a ‘personal connection’.[40]
  3. [73]
    In passing, we note that this interpretation of the words is reflected in the examples given in the Register of Interest Notes issued by the Queensland Government, which is available for download online on the State Development and Infrastructure website.  It says:

•List voluntary or unpaid work provided to a person/entity which has dealings with council where no direct benefit may be received (e.g. providing free bookkeeping services for small business run by a family friend or relative).

•List details of non-financial business dealings and interests that could give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.  For example, if your family business is part of a promotional alliance for the industry or region.

  1. [74]
    That guidance is based on the current version of the legislation, but section 17 is to the same effect in the current version as the one which applied at the time of Ms Strelow’s alleged misconduct.  As mentioned above there was a small change to section 17 which did not affect its meaning.
  2. [75]
    In Independent Assessor v Heath F19/6510 6 February 2020 the CCT applied the word ‘interest’ in that way.  The CCT found that Councillor Heath had an interest in a seafood business by working for it and subsequently as a paid employee.  But Councillor Heath also had a romantic relationship with the owner of the business.  The CCT considered that this was also an ‘interest’ within section 17 because this was a ‘pursuit, interest or concern with something or someone’.[41]
  3. [76]
    The IA submits that the Adani hospitality was a ‘financial or non-financial interest’.[42]  The IA submits that the words should be interpreted purposively so that (when dealing with A’s submission about the interest needing to be ‘held’):[43]

Based on the purpose of the LG Act and the local government principles, it is evident that the LG Act placed significant emphasis on accountability and transparency which is more consistent with the interpretation that the holder of the interest refers simply to the person who holds the interest.

To interpret them more narrowly, would mean that councillors would not be required to disclose other interests which are not capable of being ‘held’ in the narrow sense even when they raise, or could potentially raise, a conflict between the interest and the councillor’s duty.  This is not in keeping with the broader purpose and objects of the statute.

  1. [77]
    In our view it is incorrect to say that anything which could raise a conflict needs to be disclosed under section 17.  To us the wording is clear.  Only an interest, that is a financial or non-financial interest, which could raise a conflict needs to be disclosed.
  2. [78]
    Excluded must be leanings arising from matters of sentiment.  This is because these are not financial or non-financial interests.  That point has been made in various cases, for example by Cussan A.C.J in Sloane v Sambell [1931] VLR 393 in the Victorian Supreme Court where the question was whether the defendant was ‘interested or concerned’ in a contract made by the Council.  After considering several authorities which had considered the words ‘interested’ and ‘concerned’ in the context of conflicts, he said:[44]

They show that at law “interest” arising from curiosity, novelty, relationship, friendship, affection, ill-will etc, are excluded, that what has to be found is something in the nature of a pecuniary or proprietary, or at least material, interest, something by which legal rights or liabilities are or may be affected, something to which the law can apply its objective standard of money or money’s worth.

  1. [79]
    In the same way we think that this must exclude a councillor’s innermost thoughts, political beliefs and opinions, ideology, dispositions, conscious prejudices and emotionally or factually based likes or dislikes because they are not financial or non-financial interests either.  This makes sense because otherwise a councillor would have to enter on the register of interests any life experience which might cause them to lean one way or the other when making Council decisions.  We do not see that as best achieving the purpose of the interest disclosure provisions.[45]
  2. [80]
    We note that the NSW ICAC Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW, November 2015 set out the requirement in a similar way.  It states:

What are non-pecuniary interests?

4.10 Non-pecuniary interests are private or personal interests that the council official has that do not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Act. These commonly arise out of family, or personal relationships, or involvement in sporting, social or other cultural groups and associations and may include an interest of a financial nature.

4.11 The political views of a councillor do not constitute a private interest.

Whether proof of an actual or potential conflict is required in this context

  1. [81]
    The submissions from the IA and made on Ms Strelow’s behalf disclose a considerable difference in the approach to this question.
  2. [82]
    The submissions on Ms Strelow’s behalf are that:[46]

(the IA must establish that the interest) would lead a reasonable person to believe that the Mayor had a possible conflict between her duties under the Act and her own interests 

On no sensible view of the facts could that question be answered in the positive in light of:

  1. the Trade Mission being organised by the Premier;
  1. the Mayor being one of eight Mayors invited;
  1. seven of the eight Mayors received the same hospitality subject to the Charge;
  1. the only perceivable interest that the Mayor had was an interest in advancing Rockhampton, its businesses and people;
  1. there is no suggestion that the Mayor somehow stood to benefit personally;
  1. the Council approved the Mayor’s visit by public resolution;
  1. the widespread publicity of the Trade Mission and of the matters in (a) to (e), and
  1. the fact that the LGA specifically provides that no conflict of interest arises if the interest of a councillor is no greater than any other person in the local government area.
  1. [83]
    In other words, it is said that section 17 is only engaged if as a matter of fact in the actual circumstances, objectively the interest would or could give rise to a possible conflict with the councillor’s duty under the LGA.
  2. [84]
    The IA’s submissions are quite different.  It is submitted that (when comparing the conflict of interest provisions which requires disclosure of a conflict at a meeting):[47]

in the IA’s submission, the threshold for when an interest is required to be recorded pursuant to section 17 of the Regulation, is much lower than when a councillor is required, under the LG Act, to declare a real or perceived conflict of interest in a matter being considered at a meeting.  This is because the conflict of interest provision applies where a councillor has a conflict of interest in the matter (a reason conflict of interest) or could reasonably be taken to have a conflict of interest in the matter (a perceived conflict of interest).  By comparison section 17 is intended to capture a broad range of (financial and non-financial) interests not covered by the categories specifically defined in sections 2 to 16.  The only limitation of section 17 is that the interest is known to the councillor and raises, appears to raise, or could raise, a conflict of interest.

emphasis retained

  1. [85]
    The reference in this submission to the requirement to disclose a conflict of interest at a meeting is that in section 173 of the LGA which we have set out above under ‘the disclosure regime applying to councillors’.  In submissions, the IA relies on a definition of ‘conflict of interest’ from section 175D(1) of the LGA, a provision which was not in force at the time of the alleged misconduct in this review, but which is in similar terms a definition in section 173(2) of the LGA, following amendments to the LGA.[48]  In both forms, the definition of conflict of interest is used to circumscribe those occasions when a councillor must declare a conflict where a matter is to be discussed in a meeting or committee of the Council, and as noted above there are a list of things in section 173(3), or 175D(2) in the later version, which are said not to be a conflict of interest.  In these provisions about meetings, the definition of conflict of interest is to be contrasted with a ‘material personal interest’ which is more significant because it arises when a councillor stands to gain a benefit or suffer a loss depending on the outcome of the meeting.
  2. [86]
    It can be seen therefore that the conflict of interest definition used in the provisions about meetings serves a particular purpose and in our view, does not assist when considering whether an interest in section 17 could ‘conflict between the relevant person’s duties under the LGA and the holder of the interest’.
  3. [87]
    We would agree therefore that the definitions are different, but the IA submit in the passage above that the threshold for section 17 to be engaged is ‘much lower’ than the requirement to disclose a conflict of interest in a meeting.  For this proposition, the IA cites a passage from Independent Assessor v Heath:[49]

that the intent of the legislature was to ensure Councillors provided a Register of Interests that was a complete and transparent record of their non-financial and financial interests that had not been captured by the provisions of Schedule 5 sections 1-6.  The intention of Schedule 5 section 17 was to capture all other non-financial and financial interests that could raise an “awareness” that an “interest” exists, regardless of whether there was an actual interest or merely a perception of an interest, between the Councillors decision-making duties and his personal interests and pursuits.

emphasis retained

  1. [88]
    In other words, the IA’s position is that for section 17 to be engaged, it is not necessary to establish that the interest could give rise to a conflict.  Since the aim of schedule 5 is to achieve a register of councillor’s interests, all that is necessary to show was that the councillor had an interest in a matter on which the Council might make a decision.
  2. [89]
    That this is an accurate description of the IA’s approach is demonstrated by the IA’s argument on the facts.[50]  The IA sets out the close involvement of Ms Strelow and the Council with the Adani project and says that after having attended the trade delegation, Ms Strelow and the Council considered and made decisions in which the Adani Group was an interested party, and hence it is said:

the interest was one which raised, appeared to raise or could raise a conflict of interest real or perceived when matters directly relevant to Adani were considered by RRC where the circumstances would indicate that this was expressly within contemplation

as such it was a breach of section 171B(2) of the LG Act for Councillor Strelow not to have updated her Form 2 register of interest within 30 days of receiving the interest

  1. [90]
    There is no attempt here to explain how it could be that a reasonable person could believe that Ms Strelow would be in conflict with her duties by reason of the interest.  This is because on the IA’s submissions it is not necessary to show this.
  2. [91]
    An explanation for this approach appears in the IA’s submissions in reply, filed in the proceedings before the CCT:[51]

The reality is that at the time of acquiring an interest it cannot be known what decisions will come before council and how connected or remote a councillor’s interest may be to the particular issue under consideration.  This is why the requirement to capture an interest in item 17 is more broadly expressed than the elements required to prove a conflict of interest that has already manifested in relation to an identified matter before council.

  1. [92]
    We have difficulty with the IA’s submission because if accepted, there would be no application of the requirement in section 17 that the interest be one that raises, appears to raise, or could raise, a conflict between the relevant person’s duty under the LGA and the holder of the interest. 
  2. [93]
    We do not accept what was said in the IA’s submissions in reply filed in the proceedings before the CCT as set out above.  It is the other sections in schedule 5, and not section 17, that catch interests which may result in a conflict at some time in the future even unexpectedly.[52]
  3. [94]
    We think the IA has misunderstood the cited passage in Heath.  In that passage we think that the CCT was simply saying that it does not matter that no actual conflict with the duties under the LGA can be shown, it was enough if a perception of such conflict is shown.  This is shown by the fact the CCT in Heath did make findings of fact that in the public perception there was such a conflict.[53]
  4. [95]
    Section 17 is only engaged if as a matter of fact in the actual circumstances, the interest raises, appears to raise, or could raise, a conflict with the councillor’s duty under the LGA.  Those duties appear in section 12 of the LGA (responsibilities of councillors) which we have recited earlier in these reasons, which should be read with section 4 (local government principles underpin this Act).  The main relevant ones for us to consider in this review are that a councillor must represent the current and future interests of the residents of the local government area, and when performing a responsibility, a councillor must serve the overall public interest of the whole local government area, and act in accordance with the local government principles which include decision-making in the public interest, transparent and effective processes, and ethical and legal behaviour.
  5. [96]
    The test is objective, and is whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that by reason of the interest, the councillor might not fulfill those duties.[54]  In applying that test it is to be presumed that such an observer has knowledge of the material objective facts.[55]  In this particular review it would mean that the observer would be aware of existing Council decisions, future decisions which could be anticipated at any time after the interest arose, and be aware of Ms Strelow’s own position on the Adani project.

Whether interests dealt with earlier in schedule 5 can be within section 17

  1. [97]
    This was a submission made by Ms Strelow in writing to us in this review.[56]  She relies on the doctrines of expressum facit cessare tacitum[57] and generalia specialibus non derogant[58] but it may be that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius[59] is a better label for the point made.  The point is that section 17 cannot require disclosure of anything expressly excluded in the earlier provisions. 
  2. [98]
    In support of this submission Ms Strelow points to the heading ‘other financial or non-financial interests’.  Certainly it is right to say that an interest which should be disclosed under the earlier provisions of schedule 5 must be outside section 17.  We can understand that from the use of these words in the heading to section 17:

Other financial or non-financial interests

  1. [99]
    The Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) provides that a heading forms part of the Regulation and part of the provision to which it is heading.[60]  Hence it is clear that if an interest is disclosed under one of the earlier provisions it does not have to be disclosed again under section 17.
  2. [100]
    It is also right to say that interests of a type not provided for in the earlier provisions which cover certain holdings, assets, liabilities, income, and past gifts and benefits, would be within section 17 provided of course the interest, that is a financial or non-financial interest, was one of which the councillor is aware and could give rise to a conflict with duties under the LGA.
  3. [101]
    Does this mean that an interest provided for in one of the other sections, but which is expressly excluded from the requirement to register cannot come within section 17?  If so, it would mean that hospitality benefit received in an official capacity could not come within section 17 because it was excluded from the requirement to register under section 13.
  4. [102]
    We take into account here that caution needs to be exercised when considering whether the maxim applies.  As was said by the Victorian Court of Appeal in Case (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 12:

[128] The applicant effectively seeks to invoke the canon of statutory interpretation known as expressio unius est exclusio alterius: the expression of one is the exclusion of the other.  However, as the High Court stated in Houssein v Under Secretary, Department of Industrial Relations and Technology (NSW), ‘[t]hat maxim must always be applied with care, for it is not of universal application and applies when the intention it expresses is discoverable upon the face of the instrument.  It is a “valuable servant, but a dangerous master”.’  There may be an explanation for the differences in the provisions other than a deliberate legislative intention to make different provision, such as ‘inadvertence or accident’.

footnotes omitted

  1. [103]
    The point is made in the submission that if section 17 covers everything, then the earlier specific provisions have nothing to do.  They are unnecessary and there would be no reason (for example) for hospitality benefit given on official business to be excluded in section 13.
  2. [104]
    We think the submission does not work because the role of section 17 is different from the earlier provisions.  In the main, the earlier provisions apply irrespective of whether a conflict could arise.  And as we have decided above, section 17 does not cover everything.  We do not think therefore, that an interest provided for in one of the other sections, but which is expressly excluded in those sections from the requirement to register, cannot come within section 17.

Our findings in this review

  1. [105]
    Our role is to find the correct and preferable decision on the complaint made by the IA against Ms Strelow.
  2. [106]
    That complaint had three main elements to be considered by the CCT and now the tribunal in this review, that is:
    1. Whether the Adani hospitality was an interest, that is a financial or non-financial interest, within section 17 of schedule 5 of the Regulation;
    2. if so, whether it raised, or appeared to raise, or could raise, a conflict for Ms Strelow in the performance of her duties under the Act;
    3. and if (a) and (b) are proved, whether this amounted to misconduct.
  3. [107]
    It seems to us that since this is a review and not appeal, it is unnecessary for us to consider element (c) if either (a) or (b) are not proved to our satisfaction.  Therefore we shall concentrate on (a) and (b).
  4. [108]
    It is helpful to recite the relevant section again:

17Other financial or non-financial interests

  1. The particulars required for each other interest of a relevant person are sufficient details of the interest to identify it.
  1. In this section— interest, of the relevant person, means a financial or non-financial interest—
  1. of which the relevant person is aware; and
  1. that raises, appears to raise, or could raise, a conflict between the relevant person’s duty under the Act and the holder of the interest.

(a) Was the Adani hospitality an interest, that is a financial or non-financial interest, within section 17?

  1. [109]
    We have considered above how financial or non-financial interest should be construed.  The point made in submissions to the CCT on Ms Strelow’s behalf was:[61]

The fundamental difficulty with the IA’s interpretation of Item 17 is that it is impossible to see how an “interest” can extend to something which is consumed rather than something which involves ownership or rights (financial interest) or which involves a personal connection (non-financial interest).  A person who receives hospitality benefits does not have an interest in those hospitality benefits.  There is no financial or non-financial interest in hospitality benefits.  They are benefits that are consumed, not something that one holds.

emphasis retained

  1. [110]
    Although the IA made submissions in reply, they did not deal with the point made.  In submissions before us, the IA repeats that the hospitality benefit was an interest and in oral submissions this seems to be explained by working backwards from a conflict with duties under the LGA.  It is said that if there is a conflict with those duties then there is an interest within section 17 which should be on the register.
  2. [111]
    We do not agree that this is the correct application of section 17.  We agree with the submissions made on Ms Strelow’s behalf that the Adani hospitality cannot amount to an interest under section 17.  At the time when the hospitality was being enjoyed it was not an interest, that is a financial or non-financial interest.  Afterwards, when it was merely a memory or a feeling of satisfaction (if all went well) or of disappointment (if not) it was not an interest, that is a financial or non-financial interest, under section 17 either.

(b) Could Adani’s hospitality raise a conflict with Ms Strelow’s duties?

  1. [112]
    We note that we are not considering here whether Ms Strelow was in conflict with her duties generally with respect to the Adani project.  We are considering whether the Adani hospitality could give rise to a conflict with those duties.
  2. [113]
    To show this, some evidence would be required to show that, viewed objectively, the interest gave rise to a conflict between Ms Strelow and her duties under the LGA or could do so.  In this respect, it seems clear that for councillors already in conflict an enlargement of such conflict may suffice.  To take a simple example, a councillor might be indebted to a developer working in the Council’s area in the sum of $11,000 and so is in conflict.  Then if the councillor receives a gift from the developer to the value of $400 the question will be whether the conflict is greater by reason of the gift than it was before.  If so then the gift would need to be disclosed under section 17 (it is below the gift threshold in section 15 of $500).
  3. [114]
    Since as mentioned above, the approach of the IA is that there is no need to establish that there is or could be a conflict, although the IA has provided some information about the Adani project, the evidence about this comes largely from Ms Strelow.  For the CCT she filed an affidavit made on 15 May 2020 which exhibited many newspaper articles, media releases and other material showing her position, that of the Council and that of the State, towards the Adani project both before and after the Adani hospitality received on 18 March 2017.  There is no suggestion that any of the information which can be gathered from these exhibits is inaccurate.  We shall take it that the material demonstrates the true factual position.  And since we are considering whether there was a possibility of conflict as judged by a fair minded observer with knowledge of all material facts, the information available to such an observer is relevant to that question.
  4. [115]
    On the evidence we have been given, we find that in about May 2014 the Queensland State government approved the Adani Group’s proposed Carmichael coal mine and rail project.  In April 2016 mining leases for the coal mine and a rail project in the Galilee Basin were approved. 
  5. [116]
    The State had secured commitment from the Adani Group to use local labour rather than workers on 457 visas, but there was a need for an airport near the mine so that workers could fly in and fly out from the FIFO hub.  In late 2016 Rockhampton and Townsville were shortlisted by the Adani Group for the FIFO hub.
  6. [117]
    On 8 February 2017 Ms Strelow as Mayor of Rockhampton Regional Council made a media announcement that in order to try to secure the FIFO hub for Rockhampton, rather than have it in Townville, the Rockhampton Regional Council had made an offer to the Adani Group to build, own and operate an airport near the mine.  This was to be at Moray Downs in the north Galilee Basin.[62]  It would be a private airport which would charge for its services and make a commercial rate of return on the investment.  The airport would fly workers to and from Rockhampton where the workers would be based.  Ms Strelow said that this would work well because the Council also owned and operated Rockhampton airport.  Ms Strelow said that the decision had been made unanimously by the Council Table, and that her belief was and the feedback she was getting, showed that the ratepayers were in support. 
  7. [118]
    Ms Strelow said that the Council had been in constant discussions with the Adani Group about the hub since before Christmas, and that the Council had hosted several delegations from the Adani Group.
  8. [119]
    But Townsville was also bidding hard for the FIFO hub.  The rivalry between the two Councils was portrayed by the News Corp newspapers as follows:[63]

‘City leaders have declared war between Townsville and Rockhampton in the face of a looming threat that the beef capital is on the cusp of securing Adani’s fly-in fly-out workers’.

  1. [120]
    The News Corp article quoted the Mayor of Townsville Jenny Hill as saying that it was a ‘full-on FIFO fight’ and that the Townsville Council had been on the phone to the Adani Group and contacted the State members to push Townsville’s interests and to build a powerful case for the city which would ‘leave Rockhampton for dead’.
  2. [121]
    Ms Strelow responded on 10 February 2017 by seeking support in the same newspaper, saying that Townsville had come out fighting, would try to ‘up the stakes’ and should not be underestimated.  She asked people to write letters of support to Council and to the State and Federal Members, there being a ‘lot on the line’.[64]
  3. [122]
    A month later things had tempered a bit.  In an email to the newspaper dated 15 March 2017 just the day before the trade delegation to India, Ms Strelow said:[65]

We believe our bid presents the better business case.  We have already addressed the issues raised by the Townsville media in our own bid documents.  It is not appropriate or helpful to battle it out in the media, City against City.  This is not a blood sport to win short term political approval.  The result is far too important to families in both Cities who are trying to keep their homes and feed their children.  It would be far better if we were to work together to make sure the Adani mine gets through its last hurdles.

I’m very much looking forward to being able to put the case to the Chairman and Board members of Adani that regional Queensland needs their project to go ahead and that we are all very supportive of the project.  I believe the visit which has the Premier and six regional Mayors is a very powerful show of support!

We will have the opportunity to visit sites currently operated by Adani to see for ourselves how they conduct their business on the ground in their home country.

There has been so much character assassination and half-truths told that the Adani company could well believe that no one in Queensland wanted their project to go ahead!

  1. [123]
    Other newspaper articles show that the other Mayors on the trade delegation to India were to take the opportunity to meet the Adani board and for example Mayor Jenny Hill of Townsville said that on the visit to the Adani Group she would make sure the Council puts the best case forward, and that Townsville had the capacity to do the work and ‘we’ll show the chairman we can do it’.[66]
  2. [124]
    There was opposition to the mine.  It was reported on 16 March 2017, that is the day of travel to India for the trade delegation, that at least 80 prominent Australians signed a letter addressed to the Adani Group calling for the mine to be abandoned.  This was because of environmental issues, concerns about global warming and public health and because it was against the wishes of the people and would damage the image of India in Australia.[67]
  3. [125]
    Of significance for our analysis of the possibility of conflict with duties, is Ms Strelow’s response to the letter.  On 17 March 2017 when she was in India, her response appeared in a local newspaper.[68]  Ms Strelow was quoted as saying that ‘halting coal production would bring civilisation as we know it to an end’ and the headline said that she slammed the 80 prominent Australians – including a Howard advisor and two cricketing legends – for trying to stop the 10,000 job Adani mine by peddling ‘fake news’.
  4. [126]
    On 20 March 2017, and so after the end of the trade delegation there was a newspaper article describing the result of the trade delegation.  ‘High ranking officials’ were reported as saying that the visit had been a ‘breakthrough’ and had ‘gathered the support of the company’s board’.  The Adani Group chairman, Gautam Adani was reported as saying that the final decision whether to go ahead with the project would be made by the Adani Group by mid-June.[69]
  5. [127]
    On 20 March 2017 the Premier was reported in a local newspaper to have said:[70]

the trip reaffirmed how important it was for Queensland to have a good relationship with the company

These mayors represent one in every seven Queenslanders, and 14 per cent of Queensland’s area

Their commitment to travel so far to be here today shows they share my conviction in how important a role a company like Adani can play in the future development of regional Queensland

  1. [128]
    After the trade delegation, the Council made certain decisions about the Adani Group.  We think it is highly likely that a number of Council decisions were made but we have only been told about some of these in brief.  On 3 April 2017 there was a Special Council Meeting chaired by Ms Strelow as Mayor which considered a confidential report about the Adani project.  The Council resolved to conduct the activity it had offered as a Beneficial Enterprise under sections 39 and 40 of the LGA if successful with the offer and to delegate to its Chief Executive Officer the powers and functions necessary for the establishment of a company limited by shares to conduct the beneficial enterprise.
  2. [129]
    On 24 July 2017, 12 September 2017 and 26 September 2017 there were further confidential reports presented to Council meetings.  Ms Strelow chaired all these meetings as Mayor.
  3. [130]
    On 21 November 2017 at a Council meeting a resolution was passed to form an investment special purpose vehicle named Rockhampton Aviation Services and the director positions to be held by the Mayor or delegate and the Chief Executive Officer or delegate.  The IA’s submissions say that this resolution was connected with the Adani project.  Ms Strelow was not at that meeting.
  4. [131]
    From the above information a fair minded observer with knowledge of all material facts would know that:
    1. at the time of the trade delegation the Adani Group was yet to make its final decision on whether to go ahead with the project, and if it did decide to go ahead with the project it would need then to decide whether to accept Rockhampton Regional Council’s offer to build the satellite airport, and whether the FIFO hub would be Rockhampton, Townsville or both;
    2. Ms Strelow was fully committed to the Adani project, and was most unlikely to change her mind about it, or be swayed in any way by opposition to the project which, judging from her reaction to the letter signed by the 80 prominent Australians, she would roundly reject;
    3. Ms Strelow had the support of all her fellow councillors in holding her position on the project and she believed that the ratepayers agreed with her on this;
    4. if the Adani Group decided to go ahead with the project and if Rockhampton were to be involved in building the airport and as a FIFO hub, there would be many decisions for the Council to make as the project progressed and also in the future during its life;
    5. the Adani hospitality being considered was the transport on 18 March 2017 from Mumbai to the solar plant and then to Chennai, and the meal that evening, which, together with the dinner in a hotel the previous evening had been valued at $1,669.93 per person;
    6. on 17 and 18 March 2017 Ms Strelow was on official duties and in attendance on behalf of the Council, and as part of the Premier’s delegation so that this was unlike a private holiday;
    7. the trade delegation was seen as a way to encourage the Adani Group to complete the proposed project, and to demonstrate the commitment of the State and its organs of government to the project;
    8. Ms Strelow’s aim in the trade delegation was to promote with the Adani Group acceptance of the Council’s offer to build and operate the satellite airport, and for Rockhampton to be chosen as a FIFO hub, and it was not the case that the Adani Group would be aiming to influence her.
  5. [132]
    The observer would also be aware, we think, of opposition to the project from various quarters but on the evidence we have been provided with, the observer would not be aware of anything which would cause the Council to consider whether to change its mind about the project.  There was nothing known to the observer in the letter from the 80 prominent Australians for example, which would cause the Council to reconsider its decision to support the project.
  6. [133]
    In these circumstances we cannot see that the observer could possibly think that the Adani hospitality being considered was capable of influencing Ms Strelow in any way when making Council decisions.  No such scenarios have been offered by the IA, and we cannot think of any which might result in such a conclusion even in the most unlikely event.
  7. [134]
    In the circumstances we answer the question whether the Adani hospitality could raise a conflict with Ms Strelow’s duties under the LGA in the negative.

Conclusion

  1. [135]
    We have concluded that Ms Strelow was not required to record the hospitality benefit received from the Adani Group during the trade delegation to India in March 2017 on the register of interests because it was not an ‘interest’, that is a financial or non-financial interest, under section 17 of schedule 5 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) and because it could not give rise to a conflict with her duties.  She had not engaged in misconduct by failing to do so. 
  2. [136]
    We set aside the decision made by the CCT to that effect on 2 July 2020 and the penalty imposed by the CCT on 9 November 2020 and substitute our own decision that the complaint is not sustained.

Footnotes

[1]  This appears from a media release issued by the Premier on 25 February 2017, page 307 of the section 21 documents.

[2]  Page 306 of the section 21 documents.

[3]  Page 44 of the section 21 documents.

[4]  Page 47 of the section 21 documents.

[5]  Page 346 of the section 21 documents.

[6]  Such as a letter written by Ms Strelow’s solicitors dated 11 September 2019, page 503 of the section 21 documents.

[7]  Parliamentary report page 379 of the section 21 documents.

[8]  Affidavit of Ms Strelow made on 15 May 2020 paragraph 13.

[9]  Email from Adani dated 23 March 2017 page 475.

[10]  Invoice dated 10 May 2017 page 278 of the section 21 documents.

[11]  Mr Pardon’s affidavit paragraph 10 page 261 of the section 21 documents.

[12]  Page 477 of the section 21 documents.

[13]  Section 172 of the LGA to which reference should be made to understand the full nature of the provisions.

[14]  Section 172(2).

[15]  Section 173 of the LGA to which reference should be made to understand the full nature of the provisions.

[16]  Hansard 18 November 1993 5990.  Reference to this speech is permitted by sections 14B and 53 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld).

[17]  Serial No. 92/R1, Report on The Review of Codes of Conduct for Public Officials.

[18]  That is, in section 195 of the Act (about keeping registers of interests) and section 18 of the Regulation (about what should be entered on the registers of interests).

[19]  Now in section 150L instead of in section 176(3).

[20]  Under Chapter 6 Part 3 of the LGA as it applied at the time of the alleged misconduct in this matter.

[21]  Section 176(9) read together with section 244 of the LGA as it applied at the time of the alleged misconduct in this matter.

[22]  Page 264 of the section 21 documents.

[23]  Mr Pardon’s affidavit made on 15 May 2020 for the CCT proceedings, and his statutory declaration made on 17 January 2023 and its exhibits filed in the tribunal for this review.

[24]  Page 267 of the section 21 documents.

[25]  Email of 26 July 2018 from the Manager, Governance page 479 of the section 21 documents.

[26]  Paragraph 10 of submissions filed in the tribunal on 21 June 2023. 

[27]  Page 483 of the section 21 documents.

[28]  Page 485 of the section 21 documents.

[29]  Statutory declaration made on 5 June 2019, page 282 of the section 21 documents.

[30]  Letter dated 11 September 2019 page 500 of the section 21 documents.

[31]  Page 539 of the section 21 documents.

[32]  Section 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

[33]  As summarised in the CCT decision of 2 July 2020 page 536 of the section 21 documents.

[34]  This is a summary of the full complaint as appears in the CCT decision of 2 July 2020.

[35]  Schedule 5 is set out in full further below.

[36]  A contribution to the cost of travel or accommodation made by spouse, family member or friend is excluded provided there could not be perception of a conflict of interest.

[37]  Page 345 of the section 21 documents.

[38]  Page 346 of the section 21 documents.

[39]  Schedule 4 (dictionary) of the LGA.

[40]  Submission prepared by Damien O'Brien KC, paragraph 38, page 524 of the section 21 documents, which Ms Strelow has adopted in her submissions to the tribunal in this review.

[41]  Paragraphs 42 and 50, quoting a dictionary definition of the word ‘interest’.

[42]  Paragraph 52 of submissions filed on 6 June 2023.

[43]  Paragraphs 96 and 97 of submissions filed on 6 June 2023.

[44]  At page [397].

[45]  Relevant to the interpretation required by section 14A in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld).

[46]  Submission prepared by Damien O'Brien KC, paragraph 49, page 526 of the section 21 documents, which Ms Strelow has adopted in her submissions to the tribunal in this review.

[47]  Submissions filed on 8 June 2023, paragraph 108.

[48]  The amendments were made by the Local Government Electoral (Implementing Stage 1 of Belcarra) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2018.

[49]Heath F19/6510 paragraph 41.

[50]  Submissions filed on 8 June 2023, paragraphs 55 to 62.

[51]  Submissions in reply dated 25 June 2020, section 21 documents page 532.

[52]  We note however, the provisions in sections 12(3) and 13(3)(b) which do refer to a ‘conflict of interest’ when testing whether receipts of gifts or hospitality benefit from a spouse, other family member or friend need to be put on the register of interests.

[53]  Paragraphs 40, 45, and 47.

[54]  A test borrowed from Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337, [6].

[55]Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70 per Deane J, [11], CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 76, [58].

[56]  Page 16 of submissions filed on 10 May 2023.

[57]  What is expressed makes the implied silent.

[58]  The general does not detract from the specific.

[59]  The expression of one is the exclusion of the other.

[60]  This is by the combination of section 7 (‘Act includes statutory instruments under Act etc.’) section 14 and section 35C.

[61]  Submission prepared by Damien O'Brien KC, paragraph 38, page 524 of the section 21 documents, which Ms Strelow has adopted in her submissions to the tribunal in this review.

[62]  Pages 291 to 297 of the section 21 documents.

[63]  Page 299 of the section 21 documents.

[64]  Page 301 of the section 21 documents.

[65]  Page 303 of the section 21 documents.

[66]  Townsville Bulletin 25 February 2017 page 409 section 21 documents.

[67]  Although the letter is not before the tribunal a brief description of it appears on pages 439, 440 and 444 of the section 21 documents.

[68]  Morning Bulletin, Rockhampton, page 446 of the section 21 documents.

[69]  Townsville Bulletin page 451 of the section 21 documents.

[70]  Morning Bulletin Rockhampton page 453 of the section 21 documents.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Strelow v Councillor Conduct Tribunal & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Strelow v Councillor Conduct Tribunal

  • MNC:

    [2024] QCAT 175

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Judicial Member Rinaudo AM, Member Gordon

  • Date:

    30 Apr 2024

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 76
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2019) 268 CLR 76
Cite 2 - (2019) 268 CLR 76
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2000) 205 CLR 337
Cite 2 - (2000) 205 CLR 337
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 170 CLR 70
Cite 2 - (1990) 170 CLR 70

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.