Belot v The Independent Assessor & Anor [2026] QCAT 208

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: PARTIES: APPLICATION NO/S: MATTER TYPE: DELIVERED ON: HEARING DATE: HEARD AT: DECISION OF: Belot v The Independent Assessor & Anor [2026] QCAT 208 ADAM JOHN BELOT (applicant) v THE INDEPENDENT ASSESSOR (first respondent) AND COUNCILLOR CONDUCT TRIBUNAL (second respondent) GAR702-21 Review of a Councillor Conduct Tribunal decision 11 May 2026 18 March 2026 Brisbane Judicial Member Forrest SC ORDERS: The decision of the Councillor Conduct Tribunal of 28 October 2021 is set aside. The application of the Independent Assessor filed in the Councillor Conduct Tribunal on 29 April 2020 is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: LOCAL GOVERNMENT – REGULATION AND ADMINISTRATION – COUNCILLORS AND MEMBERS – RIGHTS, DUTIES AND INCIDENTS OF OFFICE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was a councillor of a local government authority – where the applicant was invited to inspect property subject of a development application before the council – where the applicant inspected the property with other councillors without a council officer – where the Councillor Conduct Tribunal found the applicant engaged in misconduct pursuant to s 150L(1)(b)(i) of the Local Government Act 2009 – whether the applicant engaged in misconduct – whether the decision of the Councillor Conduct Tribunal should be set aside Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), ss 4, 150L, 150AT, 150AS Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld), s 20 -- 1 of 15 -- 2 Flori v Winter & Ors [2019] QCA 281 Nugent v Commissioner of Police (Qld) (2016) 261 A Crim R 383 Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Re Watson [1997] 1 Qd R 340 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Mr JT Dillon of counsel instructed by King and Co, Solicitors First Respondent: Mr MR Wilkinson of counsel for the Independent Assessor REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Applicant (“Councillor Belot”) is currently the mayor of the Livingstone Shire Council (“the LSC”), a local government authority in central Queensland centred around the coastal town of Yeppoon located on the Capricorn Coast. This is the determination of his application to review the decision of the Councillor Conduct Tribunal (“the CCT”) dated 28 October 2021. By that decision, the CCT found that Councillor Belot (who was not the mayor at the time) had engaged in misconduct pursuant to s 150L(1)(b)(i) of the Local Government Act 2009 (“the LGA”). [2] More precisely, the decision of the CCT that is under review was that on 29 August 2019, Councillor Belot, a Councillor of Livingstone Shire Council, engaged in misconduct as defined in s 150L(1)(b)(i) of the LGA, in that his conduct involved a breach of the trust placed in him as a councillor, either knowingly or recklessly, in that it was inconsistent with local government principle 4(2)(a), “transparent and effective processes, and decision making in the public interest”, when he, without a Council officer present, attended the property of an applicant for a development application with some other councillors only present, to discuss the application prior to it being voted on by the full council. How the matter is before this Tribunal [3] This Tribunal is given jurisdiction to review decisions of the CCT by s 9 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (“the QCAT Act”) and s 150AT and s 150AS(3) of the LGA. The review in this Tribunal is by way of a fresh hearing on the merits and is to produce the correct and preferable decision.1 This Tribunal has the power to confirm, amend or set aside the CCT’s decision and substitute its own decision in its place. It can also return the matter to the CCT for reconsideration with appropriate directions.2 If this Tribunal substitutes its own decision for the original decision, the QCAT decision is taken to be the decision of the CCT.3 1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld) s 20 (“the QCAT Act”). 2 QCAT Act, s 24(1). 3 QCAT Act, s 24(2). -- 2 of 15 -- 3 Factual Background [4] There is little, if any, dispute between the parties about the relevant facts. [5] A couple of citizens of the Livingstone Shire (“the Roebucks”) had a development application which was being considered by the LSC. Of course, this required the LSC, constituted by its seven councillors, to make the relevant decision to approve or refuse the application. The application had been before the LSC for some time and was coming up for determination in a meeting of the LSC after assessment, reporting and recommendations by employed officers of the LSC performing their statutory and professional duties. [6] On 1 August 2019, the Roebucks wrote to the seven councillors of the LSC and invited them to come to the property the subject of the application to conduct a site inspection. On 26 August 2019, they again wrote an email to the councillors asking them to attend a site inspection to better understand their development application before the councillors made their decision in a Council meeting that was to occur on 3 September 2019. [7] On 29 August 2019, Councillor Belot and two other councillors attended at the Roebucks’ property for that site inspection. A fourth councillor was also to attend but that councillor failed to make it to the property, having got lost along the way. The other three councillors had not arranged to attend. [8] The Roebucks drove the three councillors around the property and showed them particular areas of the property, including some where there were scenic amenity or vegetation concerns apparently held by the employed officers of the LSC assessing the application. [9] Councillor Belot said in his unchallenged evidence that: (a) he did not know the Roebucks or have any social or personal involvement with them at that time; (b) he has not had any social or personal involvement with them since that time; (c) the email he received through his Council email address on 1 August 2019 was the first direct contact he had ever had with the Roebucks; (d) one of the other councillors had actually communicated with the Roebucks to organise the inspection on 29 August 2019; (e) he saw the invitation as an “opportunity to carry out [his] duties and functions as a councillor”; (f) he was aware that the scenic amenity, lot and building envelope size and layout, and vegetation matters were of contention in respect of the proposed subdivision of the Roebucks’ land; (g) the site inspection was not a secret and he recorded the fact that it took place in his Council diary; (h) the three councillors were only at the site for about an hour; (i) the Roebucks were respectful and polite and did not try to “lobby” the three councillors; -- 3 of 15 -- 4 (j) there was no detailed discussion about the application; (k) none of the councillors discussed the way in which they intended to vote. [10] At the Council meeting on 3 September 2019, Councillor Belot informed the meeting that he had attended a site inspection at the proposed development site only a few days before along with the other two councillors. Discussion ensued but nothing was said about the councillors attending without a LSC officer or about their attendance at all in a negative sense. Nothing was said to suggest that the three councillors who had attended had done anything improper. However, no decision on the application was made at that meeting and it was agreed that all councillors would attend another site inspection with the Roebucks that was to be arranged. That site inspection took place on 10 September 2019. It was initially agreed between the Council and the Roebucks that only councillors would attend this site visit. However, prior to the visit, Council insisted that officers attend with the councillors, and two Council officers travelled with the seven councillors to the site. At the site, though, only one of them accompanied the seven councillors onto the property during the site inspection as the Roebucks firmly objected to the attendance of the other Council officer. It seems apparent that the Roebucks had objection to this particular Council officer’s attendance arising out of the development application assessment process. [11] Councillor Belot deposed to more unchallenged evidence that I consider relevant. He outlined his experience in dealing with development applications as an LSC councillor. He said that not every councillor had the time to attend every site inspection and that when a councillor did, they shared information with the other councillors and that was generally welcomed and seen as a positive thing. He said that in his experience if all councillors had not attended a site inspection, there was no general understanding or consensus that considered the process to be flawed because of that. [12] Councillor Belot said that in 2019, how a councillor managed their time around inspections, background checks and the like was up to the councillor and not dictated by specific formal procedures. He said he does not recall there being any specific practice or procedure in place for councillors meeting with developers. He does not recall there being any specific requirement for a Council officer to be present when dealing with a developer. None of that evidence was challenged. [13] Councillor Belot acknowledged that there was a policy document in place at the time in 2019 known as the “Councillor Interaction with the Organisation Policy”. He accepts that he was in the Council meeting on 30 November 2018 when it was adopted in its third iteration. Councillor Belot said that he did not specifically have that policy document or its detail in mind when he attended the site inspection in 2019. [14] That policy document was in evidence before the Tribunal. It includes in its purpose the establishment and provision of a guide for legal and ethical decision making and councillor contact with lobbyists, developers and submitters. Those are three different classes of persons related to development applications, with each having different characteristics defining them. The definitions are set out in the “Definitions” section of the policy document. “Lobbyist” is as defined in the Integrity Act 2009. “Submitter” is as defined in the Planning Act 2016. “Developer” is, relevantly, an individual acting on behalf of a development application and/or approval. [15] Part 6 of that policy document is headed “Councillor Contact with Lobbyists, Developers and Submitters”. It includes the following relevant paragraphs: -- 4 of 15 -- 5 6.1 Introduction Free and open access to Councillors, and Council itself, is vital to efficient and effective local government. Contact with Councillors is undertaken by many people in the community in relation to a broad range of matters. Lobbyists, developers and submitters seek access to Councillors to discuss potential and existing development applications. The public has a clear expectation that such contact is carried out ethically and transparently. … 6.2 Exchanges with Potential Developers, Lobbyists or Submitters in the Pre-Application Phase It is expected that Councillors will encourage responsible and appropriate development in Council’s local government area. Councillors should not feel inhibited in any communications with potential developers and lobbyists (for a potential development), in promoting the benefits of developing in Council’s local government area. In dealing with developers, lobbyists or submitters for a particular potential development, Councillors should: (a) Clarify that any opinion they give is personal and does not in any way represent the Council’s attitude (positive or negative) to the proposal; (b) Encourage them to seek independent professional advice; and (c) Encourage them to seek preliminary advice on their proposal by arranging a pre-lodgement meeting with Council staff. It is recommended that Councillors keep appropriate diary notes of the date, time and details of such dealings. 6.3 Exchanges with Developers, Lobbyists or Submitters in the Post- Application Phase Once an objector/submitter has formally lodged a submission, Councillors will decline all invitations to meet or discuss their submission on a one-on-one basis with them. The request should be referred to the Liveability and Wellbeing portfolio which will set a date, time and venue for a meeting involving available elected members and officers. At least seven (7) days’ notice in advance shall be given to all parties, if practicable. … [16] Though Councillor Belot said he did not have the details of that policy in mind in August 2019, he said he had a working knowledge and understanding of what was generally required of him as a councillor, including in terms of dealings with developers. He said he understood that he had a general duty to act transparently and ethically, but also to be effective, efficient and accountable, to ensure good governance, and to enhance democratic representation, social inclusion, and community engagement. [17] Councillor Belot said that he knew it was improper to have a secret meeting with a developer or to meet one-on-one with a developer. He said he would never do that. -- 5 of 15 -- 6 [18] Significantly, Councillor Belot said that in 2019 he did not understand it to be “a requirement” that a Council officer be present any time they interacted with a developer. Read word for word, the relevant provisions of the then extant policy document adopted by the LSC do not expressly state that requirement. It seems that paragraph 6.3 set out above was rather poorly worded and probably was meant to relate to meetings with developers, too. However, it did not expressly say that. The policy guideline also instructs councillors to decline one-on-one meetings. Councillor Belot did not have a one-on-one meeting with the Roebucks. The instruction to refer such a request for a meeting to the Liveability and Wellbeing portfolio for the setting of a date, time and venue for a meeting involving available elected members and officers could easily have been misunderstood in the context of immediately following the instruction to avoid one-on-one meetings. If the policy was intended to instruct that any meetings between councillors and developers had to be conducted that way, with a Council officer mandatorily present, then it did not say that expressly. The Officer of the Independent Assessor also acknowledged that Part 6, paragraph 6.3 of that policy document was ambiguous. [19] Councillor Belot said that he did not think that attending the site inspection with two other councillors was improper, or in breach of his obligations as a councillor. If he had thought that, he said he would not have done it. The Applicaton that was Before the CCT [20] The Independent Assessor alleged (having received a complaint from a person who was also a councillor on the LSC at the relevant time) that Councillor Belot: engaged in misconduct as defined in section 150L(1)(b)(i) of the Local Government Act 2009 (Act), in that his conduct involved a breach of the trust placed in him as a councillor, either knowingly or recklessly, in that it was inconsistent with local government principle 4(2)(a), ‘transparent and effective processes, and decision making in the public interest’, when he, without a Council Officer present, attended the property of an applicant for a development application with some other councillors only present, to discuss the application prior to it being voted on by the full council. The Relevant Statutory Definition of Misconduct [21] Section 150L of the LGA defines misconduct. It says: (1) The conduct of a councillor is misconduct if the conduct— (a) adversely affects, directly or indirectly, the honest and impartial performance of the councillor’s functions or the exercise of the councillor’s powers; or (b) is or involves— (i) a breach of the trust placed in the councillor, either knowingly or recklessly… The Independent Assessor’s Case Against Councillor Belot [22] The Independent Assessor alleges that Councillor Belot engaged in conduct (as particularised in the Application) which was a reckless breach of the trust placed in the councillor, because his conduct in attending the site inspection on 29 August 2019 -- 6 of 15 -- 7 without a Council officer present was not consistent with local government principle 4(2)(a) of the LGA. [23] Relevantly, s 4(1) of the LGA requires any person performing a responsibility under the LGA to do so in accordance and consistently with, the local government principles contained in s 4(2). Specifically, s 4 says: (1) To ensure the system of local government is accountable, effective, efficient and sustainable, Parliament requires— (a) anyone who is performing a responsibility under this Act to do so in accordance with the local government principles; and (b) any action that is taken under this Act to be taken in a way that— (i) is consistent with the local government principles; and (ii) 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. (2) The local government principles are- (a) transparent and effective processes, and decision-making in the public interest; and (b) sustainable development and management of assets and infrastructure, and delivery of effective services; and (c) democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement; and (d) good governance of, and by, local government; and (e) ethical and legal behaviour of councillors and local government employees. [24] Accordingly, the Independent Assessor alleges that Councillor Belot’s conduct on 29 August 2019 was misconduct because it was a reckless breach of the trust placed in him because attending the site visit without a Council officer present with him was not consistent with transparent and effective processes and decision making in the public interest, the first of the principles set out above. [25] In written submissions, the Independent Assessor submitted that the key issues for determination are: (a) Did Councillor Belot’s conduct involve a breach of the trust placed in him as a councillor? (b) If the answer to the first question is yes, did he knowingly or recklessly breach that trust? [26] At the hearing before this Tribunal, it was not contended that Councillor Belot knowingly breached the trust but rather that his conduct amounted to “textbook” recklessness. [27] In the written submissions, the Independent Assessor acknowledged that the term “breach of the trust” is not defined in the LGA. It was submitted that when deciding breach of trust matters, the CCT has consistently applied the Queensland Court of Appeal’s decision in Flori v Winter & Ors [2019] QCA 281 (“Flori”). In that case, -- 7 of 15 -- 8 the Court of Appeal was considering the application to the particular facts of that case of statutory wording that required consideration of “conduct” by a person who “holds or held an appointment” (in Flori it was service as a police officer in the Queensland Police Service) “that is or involves… a breach of the trust placed in the person as the holder of the appointment”.4 [28] Fraser JA, with whom Buss AJA and Henry J agreed, discussed the meaning of those statutory words used in that Act. Reference was made to the decision of Thomas J in Re Watson [1997] 1 Qd R 340 at 344 where his Honour, Thomas J, said: The words “breach of the trust placed in the person by reason of his holding the appointment” is not a term of art and should be given its ordinary meaning. When a police officer assaults a member of the public or abuses his powers, the natural response of both the public and, when the occasion arises, the sentencing court, is to describe such conduct as damaging the public trust that is placed in the force. … It seems to me that the privilege of having arms is a particularly sensitive one which calls for serious personal discipline, and that breach of such discipline is capable of amounting to a breach of the trust placed in a police officer by reason of his position. The threatening of a fellow police officer with a service firearm is in my view capable of involving such a breach of trust. [29] Fraser JA went on to reference Brennan J in Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397 at 412 observing that “the effectiveness of the police in protecting the community rests heavily upon the community’s confidence in the integrity of the members of the police force.” Fraser JA then went on to reference Morrison JA who observed in Nugent v Commissioner of Police (Qld) (2016) 261 A Crim R 383 at [62] “that a police officer owes the duties of a constable at common law to maintain the King’s peace for the benefit of the citizenry, bringing to justice those by whom it is infringed.” Fraser JA then went on himself to observe at [58] that “[t]hose distinctive responsibilities of police officers explain why various forms of serious misconduct by police officers, including serious offences, have been treated by courts in various contexts as a “breach of trust” within the ordinary meaning of that expression…”. [30] Those references then lead Fraser JA to say at [59]: For present purposes it is sufficient to observe that a serious criminal offence committed by a police officer that is apt to undermine public confidence in the integrity of that police officer is appropriately described as “a breach of the trust placed in” that person as a member of the police force. [31] The Independent Assessor’s submission, adopting that statement by Fraser JA, is that conduct by a local government councillor that is “apt to undermine public confidence in the integrity” of the person occupying the role of councillor can amount to a breach of trust. [32] The Independent Assessor’s submissions included concessions that it is not argued that Councillor Belot was dishonest or corrupt or that he acted in bad faith. Rather, it was submitted that it is the public’s confidence in the process that is at the heart of this matter. It was submitted that Councillor Belot’s conduct exposed him to the risk of private influence and to the perception of private influence. Here, I observe, as a matter of relevance on this point in my judgment, that I was told at the hearing of this review, albeit, I acknowledge, in answer to questions I asked, that Councillor Belot 4 Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld), ss 14, 15. -- 8 of 15 -- 9 (currently the mayor of the LSC) was directly elected as mayor in the local government elections that took place in March 2024. This was in the wake of what I expect was publicity in the Livingstone Shire about the finding of misconduct by the CCT of 8 October 2021. His subsequent election as mayor suggests that the voting citizens of the Livingstone Shire did not have their confidence in Councillor Belot’s integrity as severely undermined by the airing of the detail of his conduct on 29 August 2019 as the Independent Assessor might suggest by the strength of the submissions on this point. Of course, whilst I consider that a relevant matter, it is not in itself determinative of this review. [33] The Independent Assessor’s submissions acknowledge that Councillor Belot attended the site inspection not alone but with two other elected councillors. Nevertheless, the Independent Assessor has submitted that: The presence of council officers was an important transparency safeguard for a number of reasons. Firstly, it would have enabled independent observation of the meeting and provided balance to the information provided by the Roebucks. In the absence of any council officers, the Roebucks were able to present information to the councillors without any risk that it would be challenged by council officers. Secondly, it would have allowed for an independent record to be made of the meeting by council officers. As it stands, there does not appear to have been any contemporaneous notes made of the interaction between the Roebucks and the three councillors by [Councillor Belot]. This is concerning from the perspective of transparency and risk management. An interaction of this nature, which is conducted between a developer and members of the decision-making body, outside of the presence of council officers, could inevitably lead to a perception that councillors have been unduly influenced in their decision-making, or that the decision, which is subsequently made by Council, is not impartial. [34] I have already observed that the evidence before me did not establish any actual statutory provision, regulatory requirement or unambiguous policy guideline for the mandatory presence of a Council officer at a site visit with a developer being undertaken by a lone councillor, not to mention by three councillors as took place on the occasion under consideration. I consider that quite significant in this matter. [35] The Independent Assessor submitted that Councillor Belot’s actions were not transparent, and therefore not consistent with the local government principles, specifically s 4(2)(a) of the LGA, and as such amounts to a breach of the trust placed in him as a councillor. [36] The Independent Assessor also relied upon evidence that was, without objection, adduced in the form of a statement by Mr Greg Chemello, a highly qualified professional who has been involved in local government in Queensland in many key ways. He has worked in town planning, property development and public sector management. He was Director-General of the Department of Local Government and Multicultural Affairs in Queensland for three months in 2018. He was a Deputy Director-General for three years from 2013 to 2015. He was appointed Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council after Parliament terminated the roles of all elected councillors. He was the CEO of Moreton Bay Regional Council for three and a half years. [37] I record here that I had previously heard an application by the Independent Assessor to be permitted to adduce and rely upon the statement even though Mr Chemello -- 9 of 15 -- 10 would not be available for cross-examination as he has, since writing the statement, become a member of the CCT. Furthermore, I made it known that I knew Mr Chemello, having previously served with him on the Prostitution Licensing Authority’s Board. No objection was taken by Councillor Belot to me hearing the application and no objection was taken to the Independent Assessor relying upon it. [38] Mr Chemello expresses the opinion that it was not appropriate for Councillor Belot and the other two councillors to meet the Roebucks “without advising the mayor and CEO and without Council staff.” He said that the preferred manner of dealing with a development application in circumstances such as presented in this case is for all councillors to attend a site inspection, if any are going to, and for them to be accompanied by Council officers who can ensure that any information or views expressed by the applicant developers and by the councillors are recorded and can be verified or contested if needed as part of the later decision-making meeting. However, he noted, having reviewed the Council’s policy document that I have referred to above, that “the policy does not specifically address this circumstance”. [39] In his conclusion, Mr Chemello expressed the opinion that “the conduct of Councillor Belot may be considered to be inconsistent with the local government principle in section 4(2)(a) of the [LGA], being “transparent and effective processes, and decision making in the public interest.”5 [40] It is trite to say that Mr Chemello’s opinion is not determinative of this review. He only expresses the opinion that the Councillor’s conduct may be considered inconsistent with the principle of transparent and effective processes and decision making, but he does not express any opinion as to whether it thereby amounts to a breach of trust that brings it within the definition of misconduct. In any event, that determination is for this Tribunal, not for some third party, no matter how experienced, well qualified and respected that third party might be. That is not to say that I totally discount it or that I do not take it into my consideration in determining the matter. I do. The Submissions made for Councillor Belot [41] For Councillor Belot, it was submitted that the Independent Assessor’s approach focussed too narrowly on “transparency” and did not consider the competing requirements of each of the relevant principles and responsibilities of councillors within proper statutory context. It was then submitted that instead of considering and applying the words of the statute in proper context, ie “whether conduct is or involves “a breach of the trust placed in the councillor”, the Independent Assessor’s submissions rely on an alternative test advanced in apparent reliance upon Fraser JA’s observation in Flori in respect of the breach of trust by a police officer who commits a serious criminal offence. Where Fraser JA said that the commission of a serious criminal offence by a police officer that is “apt to undermine public confidence in the integrity” is appropriately described as a breach of the trust placed in that police officer, the Independent Assessor submits that conduct of a councillor that is apt to undermine public confidence in the integrity of that councillor should also be treated as a breach of trust. [42] Counsel for Councillor Belot made submissions about the proper approach to statutory construction. He cited Flori as containing a summary of that at [22]. In addition, he 5 Mr Chemello’s highlighting. -- 10 of 15 -- 11 cited the High Court’s decision in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355. At [69], the High Court said: The primary object of statutory construction is to construe the relevant provision so that it is consistent with the language and purpose of all the provisions of the statute. The meaning of the provision must be determined “by reference to the language of the instrument viewed as a whole.”… [43] Counsel for Councillor Belot submitted that it was the Independent Assessor who, in earlier written submissions, referenced the Explanatory Notes to the Local Government Bill 2009 which said: This Bill provides a principles-based framework for decision making and governance. It gives local governments flexibility to decide processes that suit their size, location and administrative circumstances, as long as the processes are rational, justifiable and transparent. Anyone performing a responsibility under this Bill must consider the application of the local government principles. The principles apply to the processes carried out under the Bill as well as the results of those processes. Principles-based legislation allows practitioners to focus on outcomes and develop their own operational procedures and processes. It does not mean that the Bill will be less enforceable. Principles-based legislation achieves higher levels of compliance. By requiring entities to comply with the spirit rather than the letter of the law, they must come to terms with the reasons behind the law. Principles replace detailed prescription of roles and responsibilities and make a mandated separate code of conduct for councillors redundant. The principles highlight the absolute essentials of excellently performing local governments which citizens expect and deserve. The principles are at one and the same time, aspirational, inspirational, practical and demanding. [44] It was then submitted that: A consideration of whether Councillor Belot breached the trust placed in him as a councillor involves consideration of the whole of the LGA and in particular, the relevant misconduct provisions, local government principles and the responsibilities considered in their proper statutory context. [45] It was then submitted that the whole of s 4(2)(a) of the LGA must be considered along with the other principles set out in s 4(2) and also with s 150L. Section 4(2)(a) sets only one of the principles and is not just providing for “transparency” but rather “transparent and effective processes, and decision-making in the public interest” The other principles are equally important. They are principles of sustainable development and management of assets and infrastructure, and delivery of effective services; democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement; good governance of, and by, local government; and ethical and legal behaviour of councillors, local government employees and councillor advisors. [46] In addition, it was submitted that the responsibilities also imposed upon Councillors by s 12 of the LGA are to be considered when assessing Councillor Belot’s conduct on 29 August, 2019. Those responsibilities are: (1) A councillor must represent the current and future interests of the residents of the local government area. -- 11 of 15 -- 12 (2) All councillors of a local government have the same responsibilities, but the mayor has some extra responsibilities. (3) All councillors have the following responsibilities— (a) ensuring the local government— (i) discharges its responsibilities under this Act; and (ii) achieves its corporate plan; and (iii) complies with all laws that apply to local governments; (b) providing high quality leadership to the local government and the community; (c) participating in council meetings, policy development, and decision- making, for the benefit of the local government area; (d) being accountable to the community for the local government’s performance. [47] Counsel for Councillor Belot also went on to submit that the focus must be on the words of the LGA itself, considered in the statutory context. The relevant question, it was submitted, is whether the conduct particularised is or involves a “breach of the trust placed in the councillor, either knowingly or recklessly”. It was submitted that Fraser JA’s approach in Flori is distinguishable as it specifically related to serious misconduct by police officers that included serious criminal offences. Those were assessed as amounting to a breach of trust as they were “apt to undermine public confidence in the integrity” of the police officer involved. [48] Counsel for Councillor Belot further submitted: (a) there is no suggestion the councillor had an improper motive or purpose in attending the site inspection; (b) there is no suggestion that his conduct adversely affected, directly or indirectly, the honest and impartial performance of the councillor’s functions and powers; (c) when the councillor attended the site inspection on 29 August 2019, he was acting consistently with his responsibilities and the local government principles in a manner which did not involve a breach of trust; (d) as a decision maker, it was appropriate for the councillor to conduct a site inspection to better understand the development application he had to assess; (e) attending the site inspection with other councillors so as to avoid a one-on-one meeting with the Roebucks was a sensible and adequate precaution. It was not actually in breach of the relevant Council policy that existed at the time; (f) the site inspection would not have contravened other councils’ policy documents or the model policy published by the Office of the Independent Assessor itself; (g) the site inspection was arranged openly, without secrecy, using council emails and it was recorded in the councillor’s diary; -- 12 of 15 -- 13 (h) all seven councillors had been invited to attend the site inspection, with four saying they would and, ultimately, three attending (as the fourth got lost on the way to the site); (i) the fact of the inspection was openly shared with the other councillors at their 3 September 2019 meeting. [49] Counsel for Councillor Belot further submitted: (a) to slavishly require a council officer rather than another councillor or another appropriate person to be present on a site visit with a developer applicant is not expressly or impliedly required by either the LGA or the LSC’s own policy, nor is it consistent with the statutory intent behind the flexible principles-based approach of the LGA; (b) the need for transparency must be considered in light of the statutory context which requires effective processes and decision making, and the need to be accountable for performance. Day to day realities and practicalities and operational time and resource limitations must be considered; (c) any person is capable of observing and making a record and there is no reason to slavishly require that it be one kept by a council officer. A council officer does not necessarily have more integrity or accuracy than a councillor. In this instance, a short record was kept by Councillor Belot by way of a diary entry; (d) the conduct of Councillor Belot and his colleagues was transparent having regard to all of the facts and circumstances. There is no suggestion that there was any impropriety or improper intent or secrecy involved; (e) there is no rational basis upon which a reasonable person, appraised of all of the relevant facts and circumstances could have a perception that Councillor Belot of the councillors accompanying him had been unduly influenced. The mere fact that a site inspection occurred with other councillors is not enough; (f) it is not unusual for particular councillors with particular portfolios to have more or less knowledge about particular matters and to the extent that a site inspection allowed Councillor Belot to be better informed, it was open to the other councillors to do so too. In any event, Councillor Belot informed the other councillors about what had occurred, and the other councillors also conducted a site inspection at a later date; (g) the facts do not establish that any breach of trust either knowingly or recklessly occurred. Councillor Belot was acting for a proper purpose in the discharge of his responsibilities as a councillor; (h) Councillor Belot’s evidence that he understood he had a duty to act transparently and ethically; that he knew it would be improper to have a one-on-one meeting; that there was no general requirement at the time that a council officer had to attend with councillors; that he did not think it improper to attend with other councillors; or that it would breach his obligations as a councillor; and that he would not have attended the site inspection if he had thought it would be improper or in breach of his obligations, all should lead this Tribunal to find that Councillor Belot did not engage in misconduct. -- 13 of 15 -- 14 My Conclusion [50] I accept the submissions of counsel for Councillor Belot and find that Councillor Belot’s conduct on 29 August 2019 did not amount to misconduct as that term is defined in the LGA. [51] I consider that Fraser JA (with whom the two other Judges of the Court of Appeal agreed) in Flori cautiously approached the question of whether something a police officer had done amounted to a “breach of the trust placed in” that police officer “as a member of the police force”, ultimately expressing satisfaction that a serious criminal offence committed by a police officer is apt to undermine public confidence in the integrity of that police officer and therefore is “appropriately described as a ‘breach of the trust placed in’ that person as a member of the police force.” [52] In my judgement, if a police officer commits a serious criminal offence whilst on duty that is more than likely to undermine public confidence in the integrity of that police officer. Respectfully, I would not disagree with the judges of the Court of Appeal that such conduct is appropriately described as a breach of the trust placed in that person as a member of the police force. But this case is not about a police officer who committed a serious criminal offence. It is about a local government, elected councillor who, with two other elected councillors attended a site visit with developer applicants to get a better understanding of the issues involved in the assessment of the application. [53] Certainly, the citizens of each local government area, such as the citizens of the Livingstone Shire, do place their collective public trust in the persons they elect as their councillors to govern in accordance with the principles set out in the LGA and to uphold the responsibilities imposed upon them in that Act. As such, I do not disagree with the submissions of the Independent Assessor that actions that undermine, or conduct that is “apt to” (meaning “likely to”) undermine, the public’s confidence or collective trust in a local government councillor could potentially also be “appropriately described as a breach of the trust placed in that person” as a councillor. [54] However, I respectfully accept the submission of counsel for Councillor Belot that the proper determination of whether or not the councillor’s conduct amounts to a breach of that trust must be made by considering the subject conduct “in the context of the whole of the LGA and in particular, the relevant misconduct provisions, local government principles and the responsibilities considered in their proper statutory context.” I also consider that the gravamen of the conduct within the entire factual and statutory context of its occurrence must be considered carefully when determining whether it truly was apt to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the councillor such that it can be safely found that the conduct has amounted to or involves a breach of the public’s trust in that councillor. [55] As I have already observed, at the relevant time, there was no firm, unambiguous statutory, regulatory or policy statement, requirement or accepted practice in the Livingstone Shire that councillors could not meet with applicant developers in the presence of other councillors except with an employed Council officer present and making a detailed record of the meeting. In these circumstances, where no dishonesty or impropriety is alleged against Councillor Belot, where he recorded the visit in his Council diary, where he reported the visit to the next Council meeting only days afterwards, I am satisfied that any concerns about Councillor Belot’s conduct do not -- 14 of 15 -- 15 reach a threshold of seriousness so as to be considered as so undermining of public confidence in his integrity as a councillor that his conduct amounted to a breach of the public’s trust in him. As I have already observed, just a few years after the events in question, the citizens of the Livingstone Shire directly elected him as their mayor, thereby apparently demonstrating that their trust in him had not been diminished. [56] Accordingly, I set aside the decision of the CCT under review and dismiss the Independent Assessor’s application to the CCT of 29 April 2020. -- 15 of 15 --