Use the following sections to learn how to make section 43 submissions.

A submission seeking a variation to the amount of remuneration that may be paid to a councillor may ONLY be made by a local government (see s. 43 (1) and (2) of the Regulation).

Provide a letter to the tribunal outlining:

1. which councillors the local government seeks to vary the remuneration for;
2. the amount of variation in remuneration being sought
3. whether the councillor(s) the local government is seeking a variation in remuneration for represent a specific division, and details of that division
4. the responsibilities of the councillor(s) the local government is seeking a variation in remuneration for, and
5. the exceptional circumstances that exist for the local government to be seeking the remuneration variation.

Send the letter to the secretariat of the tribunal by mail or email.

If a submission is made to the tribunal under section 43 of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010 and the tribunal considers and approves the submission, the tribunal will indicate when the new remuneration rate is to take effect in its response to the local government concerned. The local government is then to pass by resolution the amended remuneration amount for the councillor(s) as approved by the tribunal. Details of the approved submission will be uploaded onto the tribunal's website and published in the tribunal's annual report to the minister responsible for local government.

If a submission is made to the tribunal under section 43 of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010 and the tribunal considers and does not approve the submission, the tribunal will notify the local government accordingly, outlining its reasons for disproving the submission. The tribunal will then upload details of the disproved submission onto its website.

Submissions received by the tribunal under section 43 of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010

On 2 March 2012 the tribunal considered a submission made by the Scenic Rim Regional Council. Council sought to vary the amount of remuneration payable to the mayor, deputy mayor and councillors and requested a re-categorisation of Council from Category 4 to Category 5.

Council's submission raised issues of the geographical area and settlement patterns, growth and development and community expectations and location of the Scenic Rim Regional Council.

The tribunal determined that in accordance with section 43(4) of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010 no 'exceptional circumstances' were present, and in the absence of any more compelling reasons to support Council’s submission, the request was rejected.

On 27 January 2012 the tribunal considered a submission made by the North Burnett Regional Council. Council sought to vary the amount of remuneration payable to the mayor, deputy mayor and councillors from 65%, 37.5% and 32.5% of the 2012 reference rate respectively to 70%, 42.5% and 35% of the 2012 reference rate respectively.

Council's submission raised issues of financial management, geography, fair compensation, the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement Transitional Code of Conduct, comparison of government levels and their firm belief that councillors should be at the top of the previously set remuneration range.

The tribunal determined that in accordance with section 43(4) of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010 no 'exceptional circumstances' were present, and in the absence of any more compelling reasons to support council's submission, the request was rejected.

On 30 June 2011 the tribunal considered a submission by the Carpentaria Shire Council in relation to additional remuneration for the deputy mayor during the extended absence of the Mayor for health reasons, and for the period immediately after the mayor's death to the swearing in of his successor.

The council's application covered the period from July to November 2008 when the deputy mayor frequently acted as mayor and from November 2008 to May 2009 when the Deputy Mayor acted as Mayor.

Due to the lapse in time since the events occurred, the tribunal decided not to approve the request (section 43(3) of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010).

On 1 September 2010 the tribunal rejected a submission made by the Mornington Shire Council to be allowed to continue to pay the deputy mayor an additional amount of $3265 above the maximum rate determined by the tribunal.

Council indicated that the deputy mayor has taken in the past and is likely to take in the future far more responsibility for attending meetings both on and off the island than would normally be the case in his position due to the mayor's level of involvement in community activities as a Traditional Owner and Elder and health issues that prevent him from travelling frequently.

The tribunal determined that in accordance with the provisions of section 43 of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010 no 'exceptional circumstances' were present and the request was rejected.

On 7 October 2010 the tribunal considered a submission made by the Winton Shire Council to vary the remuneration paid to the mayor of Winton Shire Council from Category 1 to Category 2.

Council's submission highlighted council's size, geography and population, the full-time workload of the Mayor and the extensive regional presence and commitments of the Mayor, especially in relation to RAPAD.

The Tribunal determined that in accordance with the provisions of section 43 of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010 no 'exceptional circumstances' were present and rejected the request.

On 29 October 2010 the tribunal considered a submission made by the Burke Shire Council in relation to additional remuneration for the deputy mayor and another councillor of Burke Shire Council during the extended absence of the mayor for the period 26 February to 26 May 2010.

Council's submission acknowledged that the deputy mayoral remuneration would normally cover short periods of absence by the mayor but cited exceptional circumstances. These included significant activity in the shire arising from the impact of several consecutive tropical cyclones and associated dislocations, disaster management activities and a one-in-ten-years flood event.

After considering the request the tribunal decided to provide partial approval by authorising payment of 11 weeks at the higher levels rather than the 13 weeks claimed. In arriving at this decision the tribunal noted that the circumstances surrounding the application constituted 'exceptional circumstances' in accordance with the provisions of section 43 of the Regulation but that payment should not be made in respect of two weeks of the mayor's leave as the current remuneration levels reflect community expectations concerning periods that elected councillors might be absent on sick leave and their expectations that other arrangements would be made to accommodate such absences.

Submissions received by the tribunal under section 250AL of the Local Government Act 1993

On 10 February 2010 the tribunal rejected a submission made by Logan City Council in relation to council being permitted to pay councillors below the minimum amount of remuneration determined for 2010. Council stated the exceptional circumstance alleged to exist is that the councillors 'do not wish to receive an increase in their level of remuneration'. According to the relevant provision in the Local Government Act 1993 this does not represent an ’exceptional circumstance’, and in the absence of any more compelling reasons to support council's ‘exceptional circumstances' argument, the request was rejected.

On 15 September 2009 the tribunal approved a submission made by Ipswich City Council in relation to a payment to the deputy mayor during temporary absences of the mayor between 1 July to 30 September 2008. Council indicated that in accordance with policies established prior to the establishment of the tribunal in October 2007 it had already paid the deputy mayor the same remuneration as the mayor would have received during the periods of absence identified above. Although council had subsequently varied its policy, to reflect an announcement on the issue by the tribunal in September 2008, it was requesting the tribunal to formally approve the earlier payment to the deputy mayor which the council reasonably believed it had the ability to make.

On 12 November 2009 the tribunal approved a submission made by Banana Shire Council in relation to payments for additional workloads of the acting mayor and acting deputy mayor during an extended absence of the mayor from 29 June to 14 August 2009 for health reasons. The tribunal approved the submission based on the exceptional circumstances of the mayor's absence.

On 12 November 2009 the tribunal considered a submission made by Torres Strait Island Regional Council in relation to increasing the remuneration of the mayor, deputy mayor, and councillors. Council stated that the conditions under which the elected members function in this particular local government area is unique, considering: remoteness by water; administration of an international treaty; trusteeship of land associated with 14 of 15 island communities involving Native Title; and, being the largest social housing provider in Queensland.

The tribunal approved an increase in the remuneration level of the mayor to $107,580 per annum, effective from 1 July 2009, equal to the maximum rate payable to a mayor of a category 4 council. The tribunal did not approve any increase in remuneration for the other elected members, on the basis that their current level of remuneration adequately reflects the duties and responsibilities involved.

A submission was made by Cook Shire Council on 23 September 2008 seeking additional remuneration for its current mayor who receives remuneration at the highest range of the 'special' category as determined by the tribunal.

Council sought to alter the mayor's remuneration to align it with the remuneration range determined for a category 3 mayor. The submission outlined the exceptional circumstances council believed applied to this matter, which included: exceptional travel commitments in Queensland's largest shire; special circumstances created by interface with nine Indigenous shire councils, three non-Indigenous regional councils, 24 national parks, wet tropics and world heritage areas; heavy involvement in various Far North Queensland and Cape York boards, advisory bodies and groups; heavy involvement in Indigenous affairs and related issues in Cape York Area (such as alcohol management plans, Indigenous partnership agreements etc), including associated mentoring role.

The tribunal considered Cook Shire Council's section 250AL submission pursuant to section 250AL(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 and resolved (pursuant to s. 250AL(4)) to allow Cook Shire Council to pay the additional remuneration to the current mayor from 1 November 2008 until the end of his current term expires.

Cook Shire Council was advised of the tribunal's decision on 22 October 2008.