The NSW Government has not identified the incidents or evidence behind statements about “fairly vigorous attacks on staff” at Hawkesbury City Council, in its response to parliamentary questions seeking clarification.
The response from Minister for Local Government Hon. Ron Hoenig also does not confirm whether the information was independently verified or whether the alleged conduct involved the Hawkesbury Gazette, its publisher or representatives.
John Ruddick MLC lodged the questions on October 6 following evidence given by Office of Local Government Deputy Secretary Brett Whitworth PSM at Budget Estimates on September 2.
Mr Whitworth told the hearing that Council’s general manager Mr Will Barton was dealing with “quite significant workplace health and safety concerns” arising from what he described as “fairly vigorous attacks on staff”.
The parliamentary questions sought specific incidents, supporting documents and details of any independent verification. They also asked whether “attacks” meant threats, harassment or intimidation, or included criticism, media reporting and questioning of Council decisions.
In response, the Minister stated the Government expected councils to provide safe workplaces and engage openly with their communities, including local media.
He then distinguished departmental witnesses’ evidence from the Government’s response.
“The evidence provided by Departmental witnesses during Budget Estimates hearings is their own evidence,” the response said.
“Under the Legislative Council’s Budget Estimates procedures, should a witness wish to clarify or amend evidence given at a hearing they may do so by writing to the relevant committee.”
The answer does not say whether Mr Whitworth has reviewed his evidence, intends to clarify it or has written to the committee.
It also does not establish that his statements were inaccurate.
Addressing Council’s exclusion of particular individuals, the response said Council had described the restrictions as a workplace health and safety control measure.
“As the employer of its staff, Hawkesbury City Council has the primary duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of its workers,” it said.
Decisions about access to Council premises and meetings, and whether to refer workplace safety matters to police, SafeWork NSW, an insurer or another organisation, were matters for Council, the response said.
However, the answer does not state whether OLG received or independently assessed evidence supporting Council’s position.
It said OLG could refer matters to SafeWork NSW or NSW Police in specific circumstances, but generally did not comment on whether a referral had been made concerning a particular council.
The response also cited privacy obligations, saying information supplied to OLG could include personal information about staff and other individuals.
It did not identify which requested information could not be disclosed or explain whether an anonymised account of the alleged incidents could be provided.
Mr Ruddick’s questions also raised the Gazette’s September 3 correspondence seeking clarification. The response does not explain why that correspondence had not received a substantive answer.
On possible regulatory action, the Minister noted that section 430 of the Local Government Act allows the Departmental Chief Executive to investigate any aspect of a council’s work and activities.
“OLG is aware of the matters raised about Hawkesbury City Council and continues to monitor them,” the response said.
It did not announce an investigation or describe what the monitoring involved.
The answer leaves unresolved the distinction at the centre of the questions: whether Mr Whitworth was describing independently established incidents, allegations supplied by Council or another category of conduct and whether any involved the Gazette.
To read the questions and answers: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/parliamentary-business/questions-answers-tracking-details?id=109882&ref=20109
Disclosure: The Hawkesbury Gazette and its publisher were directly affected by Council’s exclusion notice, which was lifted in October.
