An update from my February column,
which reported the case of Marrickville councillor Max Phillips who
was suspended by the head of the NSW Division of Local Government for
refusing to apologise for telling his constituents about discussions
between a big developer (Meriton) and his council over development
concessions.
This case had major implications for
councillors throughout NSW being able to carry out their proper
duties as elected representatives accountable to their communities.
The good news is that Councillor Phillips' appeal against the decision was upheld by the NSW Civil and
Administrative Tribunal, which overturned his suspension and
contested many of the grounds on which both the initial council
decision to censure him and the subsequent disciplinary action by the
state government bureaucracy were based.
Some of these findings may be used as
general precedents in future cases where council administrations or
political majorities who want to conceal information from the public
attempt to censor or censure community-minded councillors who want to
tell their constituents what is really going on.
The bad news is that many of the
factors that guided the Tribunal's decision were particular to the
circumstances of the Phillips case, and that the NSW local government
system contains precious few specific protections for councillors who
care more about representing their constituents and the public
interest than they do about protecting the interests of council
administrations and the commercial interests who do business with
them.
The NSW Model Code of Conduct for
councils – produced by the same state government department whose
CEO made the now discredited decision to suspend Councillor Phillips
– contains many provisions specifically limiting councillors from
disclosing information to the public, but not a single provision that
specifically protects their right to do so.
The Tribunal judgement was critical of
the department's decision to simply assume that the council had been
correct in its finding against Councillor Phillips, rather than
examining whether the council's initial ruling was reasonable in the
first place.
Unfortunately, that's the standard
situation - state bureaucracies are usually much more inclined to
approach things with the same mindset as their counterparts in council
bureaucracies, and to see things their way.
Newcastle Council administration –
hardly known for its commitment to openness and transparency – has
attempted on several occasions to bind Newcastle councillors to
stringent restrictions on speaking to the media and the community on
any council matters.
The current council has also continued
the previous council's practice of cutting the number of formal
council meetings, which must be open to the public and the media, and
instead conducting much of the discussion on major matters under the
veil of secret “workshops”, which are not publicly notified, and
are closed to the public and the media.
According to council information,
between 16 October 2012 and 18 February this year the current council
held 17 ordinary and 11 extraordinary council meetings, compared to
27 closed workshops over the same period.
These closed workshops discussed more
than 50 topics, ranging from the Newcastle Art Gallery, city centre
revitalisation, community facilities, council pools, media policy and
Blackbutt Reserve, to the NSW Government White Paper on Local
Government Reform.
Nothing in any of that that the
community should know about, of course.
Though decision-making in these
workshops is technically prohibited, some councillors privately admit
that they are rife with “nod-and-wink” decision-making.
With so many examples of lack of
transparency and accountability in public policy decision-making at
the forefront of public discussion at the moment, this is yet another
example of (in the words of ICAC) a “climate conducive to corruption”.
