Hume council has voted to make the details of historical internal arbitration processes public, in a move described by one councillor as “reprisal”.
A motion introduced by councillor Jack Medcraft at a meeting on Monday, May 9, requested council reveal a swathe of previously confidential information about applications made to the Principal Councillor Conduct Registrar (PCCR).
The decision follows years of internal fighting in which multiple complaints were made by councillors against one another, including eight by Trevor Dance since 2020 at a cost to ratepayers of more than $53,000.
Mr Dance was suspended from council for three months from April 29 after a finding of “serious misconduct” in failing to comply with two lawful directions from an arbiter.
There have been multiple arbitrations between Cr Medcraft and Mr Dance.
Cr Jodi Jackson was the only one to vote against Cr Medcraft’s motion, and said she believed the underlying premise of it “may be to seek detrimental action in reprisal for a person, or persons having formalised a complaint”.
Cr Medcraft called a point of order, saying Cr Jackson was trying to “slur” his name, to which Cr Jackson responded she had not referred to anyone in particular.
Included in the information set to be presented to council before June 30 will be the total number of applications, the names of applicants and respondents, and the total costs of arbitration processes – including security and room hire.
The motion was made possible by correspondence from Local Government Minister Shaun Leane which said council could resolve to make such information available if it chose to.
Cr Jackson also asked whether the chief executive Sheena Frost was satisfied that it was lawful for council to release the information given strict privacy requirements of the PCCR, and whether the PCCR had been advised of what council was seeking to make public.
Ms Frost said the motion satisfied the PCCR requirements, and Hume governance manager Megan Kruger said while the PCCR was aware of the notice of motion, it was not up to the registrar to provide advice in that instance.
“While the registrar himself has not provided any advice, council can feel comfortable that what is in the notice of motion does match the previous advice from the minister,” Ms Kruger said.
“It does also comply with section 125 of the [Local Government] Act, which allows council to determine whether or not confidential information can be released to the public.”
Cr Karen Sherry seconded the motion, “in the interest of accountability, transparency, and how ratepayer’s money is spent”.
Cr Jarrod Bell said he believed local government should be open, because the community have “every single right” to know “who, what, when, where, why”.
“We are a city that has no secrets to hide, I think that this notice of motion does exactly that,” Cr Bell said.
He said it gives the opportunity to know who is spending their money and how the council worked together “as a team”.
Cr Medcraft said the motion covered “every base”.
“I just ask my fellow councillors that we finally put this sorry saga to bed, and be done with it,” Cr Medcraft said.
