NOVEMBER 22, 2017 \ STARWEEKLY.COM.AU
NEWS + SPORT + THE WEST’S BEST PROPERTY GUIDE ■ Council candidates ‘deceived’ into nominating
■ Serious charges could be laid
Poll probe still open By Alesha Capone and Charlene Macaulay
SkyBus
CHIEF MUNICIPAL INSPECTOR DAVID WOLF
as part of the investigation. Despite strong circumstantial cases, the inspectorate did not have enough evidence to lay criminal charges for false nominations for either candidate. Meanwhile, the second candidate group remains under active investigation with “a strong likelihood of serious charges for the
+
Great Destinations
principal candidate of this group”. The investigation included the examination of campaign material, media articles, social media posts, documents and interviews with 90 of the 95 Wyndham election candidates. ■ Continued
=
Wyndham councillor Intaj Khan is expected to fight charges relating to the filing of register of interest returns, with a two-day hearing scheduled for June next year. Cr Khan fronted Werribee Magistrate’s Court yesterday to answer charges relating to the filing of register of interest returns and the non-disclosure of relevant information in the returns filed between February 2016 and February 2017. He was not required to enter a plea. He will now face a contest hearing on June 18-19, 2018, at Sunshine Magistrate’s Court. In August, the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate announced Cr Khan had been charged with three counts of failing to disclose companies in which he held office during the return period; three counts of failing to disclose companies in which he held a financial interest; two counts of failing to submit ordinary returns and one count of failing to disclose property holdings. One of the nine charges, which relates to failing to disclose property holdings, has since been dropped. The Local Government Act 1989 requires individual councillors to lodge returns – which detail property holdings, board positions and the like – every six months while they are in office. This is to ensure that councillors declare any conflicts of interests regarding council business. If found guilty, Cr Khan faces fines of more than $75,000. Charlene Macaulay
page 4-5
Flying made Easy
To book SkyBus Avalon City Express from Werribee call 1300 759 287
avalonairport.com.au
(Damjan Janevski)
Court date set for councillor
(Charlene Macaulay)
An investigation into last year’s Wyndham council elections has revealed that two people were unaware they had been nominated as official candidates. The long-awaited report from the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate, which was handed down last week, also found that two candidates had been deceived into nominating on the “premise of a benefit”. The circumstances surrounding the pair’s nomination is still being investigated to determine if a prosecutable case exists. The inspectorate’s office received 21 formal complaints related to the activities of candidates in the Wyndham election. Out of the 95 candidates who stood in the October 2016 election, the inspectorate identified 10 candidates across two loosely aligned groups who were considered to be non-genuine – or dummy – candidates due to unusual preference arrangements, dubious residential entitlements, no active campaigning, or attending no information sessions or training. None of the 10 candidates were elected to the council. The inspectorate believes one group, which contained a number of dummy candidates, worked together solely to secure the election of a principal candidate, dubbed “candidate A”. From this, the inspectorate’s investigation revealed two cases of “suspicious entitlements”, where candidates nominated using residential addresses associated with candidate A. In each case, the candidates updated their residential address only days before the deadline, and also maintained other residential properties that were “a significant distance from the municipality”. One of the candidates, a former employee of candidate A, claimed to live in a small bungalow behind a larger residence. The report said that the inspectorate believed this candidate was running in support of their former employer, with no intention of being elected. The second candidate claimed to live in a property that “was found to be in a dilapidated state with no electricity or water connection and considered uninhabitable”. Both of these candidates listed candidate A as their second voting preference, in their candidate statements, and both exercised their right to not be interviewed by the inspectorate