Donna Gates found by independent Assessor to have made mistake on her Register of Interests
A Gold Coast councillor has been ticked off for a simple mistake in how donations were declared on the Register of Interests.
Council
Don't miss out on the headlines from Council. Followed categories will be added to My News.
GOLD Coast Deputy Mayor Donna Gates has been ordered to undergo counselling by the council’s CEO after an error was found on her Register of Interests.
Independent Assessor Kathleen Florian confirmed two counts of misconduct were sustained against Cr Gates, including for inaccurately describing more than 30 campaign donations worth more than $68,000 as “race tickets” on her register of interests.
The second misconduct finding related to the receipt of $2500 from a donor which was not added to Cr Gates’ Register of Interests within 30 days.
Cr Gates declined to comment when contacted by the Bulletin about the statement released by the Office of independent Assessor.
The OIA submitted that on multiple occasions Cr Gates inaccurately described her interests as “race tickets” when they in fact were sums of money given to the councillor for the purpose of attending a race day.
The tickets were issued in 2016 for a fundraising race day for her 2020 campaign and worth $195 each, $1850 for a standard table and $2500 for a ‘gold’ table which included different table decorations and champagne.
The donations were correctly lodged on Cr Gates’ electoral disclosure returns but not on her Register of Interests, as required under the Local Government Act.
Cr Gates immediately updated her Register of Interests in March 2019 after being notified of the investigation.
The Councillor Conduct Tribunal accepted that both misconduct matters were the result of an error which Cr Gates immediately corrected when the issue was raised.
Councillor Gates assisted the OIA with its investigation and consented to the matter being fast tracked to the Tribunal, Ms Florian said in her statement.
The Tribunal stated that the description of the gifts in the register of interests was inadequate. A person inspecting the register would not understand from the description that the nature of the gift was money rather than “race tickets”.
The “description” of the gift must be reliable, as the register is available for public inspection and for the purposes of transparency.