The decision by Hawkesbury City Council to ban the Hawkesbury Gazette and Hawkesbury Radio from Council premises followed escalating tensions surrounding workplace health and safety concerns.
Allegations of psychosocial harm affecting councillors and staff, and a deeply divisive late-night confidential Council meeting held on 14 April 2026 where the former General Manager Elizabeth Richardson received a payment of 38 weeks salary in advance of her departure have been coupled together in community discussions regarding Work Health and Safety concerns.
The fallout from that April meeting, which reportedly involved heated and emotionally charged exchanges, allegations relating to media reporting and subsequent claims of bullying and harassment within Council itself, has since evolved into one of the most significant governance controversies in recent Hawkesbury history.
Council bans local media
The Gazette and Hawkesbury Radio received notices from Council dated 28 April 2026 advising that the organisations were prohibited from entering Council premises.
In the correspondence, Council stated:
“We have formed the view that you have engaged in behaviour that has created a risk to the health and safety of councillors and staff including disruptive conduct.
“We have therefore determined that your attendance at council meeting or council premises poses an unacceptable risk to councillors and staff and we are duty bound to recognise and act on our obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.”
The notice stated the exclusion would apply “until otherwise advised by the Mayor or General Manager.”
Council has stated the measures were preventative in nature and undertaken in accordance with its obligations under workplace health and safety legislation.
SafeWork enquiry lodged after contentious council meeting held 12 May
On 15 May, Hawkesbury Radio presenter Sean Carroll, known to listeners as “Sparky Sean”, lodged a SafeWork NSW enquiry regarding conduct during Council’s 12 May Ordinary Meeting.
Mr Carroll argues the events that unfolded during this Council meeting intensified questions about whether Council had correctly identified the actual source of psychosocial risk within its workplace. During the meeting Cr Creed described his experience as a Councillor saying:
"I have raised concerns about the abuse and intimidation, threats that have been made towards me by those in this Chamber and there has been little to no acknowledgement of what I have been going through yet all of a sudden ... we are going to ban these [media organisations] because we have had some complaints from councillors.
I sent you [Mayor and General Manager] issues that I was dealing with ... because of the abuse I have recieved in here and the threats and intimidation because Im not voting certain ways ... I wanted to top myself "
The Hawkesbury Gazette attached a trigger warning with advisory to contact Life Line for anyone distressed after viewing the meeting webcast.
The nature of the debate and Council's response, or lack of response, to the distress shown and spoken by Cr Creed may cause distress to viewers. Neither the Gazette nor Hawkesbury Radio attended the meeting after being warned they posed pychosocial hazards to Council and could face trespass action if they entered Council premises.
“The harm still occurred without the media present, so further investigation needs to occur to determine what is actually happening in Council and what needs to be done to improve things; that’s what the WHS Act was set up to do” Mr Carroll said.
What the official record shows
An email dated 14 May and seen by the Hawkesbury Gazette shows Mr Carroll had already begun pressing Council to revisit its earlier psychosocial risk assessment.
In correspondence sent to Interim General Manager Will Barton and others, Mr Carroll questioned what he described as Council’s previous “risk assessment or lack of” and asked whether Council would now investigate what he called “the real psycho social risk” within the organisation.
The email included a link to SafeWork NSW’s Code of Practice on managing psychosocial hazards at work, attached the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance Journalist Code of Ethics, and invited Mr Barton to appear on his radio program to discuss the issue.
Mr Barton later replied by email, stating:
“If Hawkesbury Radio believes Council has failed to comply with its work health and safety obligations, it remains open to Hawkesbury Radio, and any other person(s) who reasonably believes the same, to refer the matter directly to SafeWork NSW, the appropriate regulatory authority, for independent assessment.”
Mr Carroll says he subsequently acted on that advice, lodging a request for investigation with SafeWork NSW on Friday 15 May 2026.
Why SafeWork’s framework matters
SafeWork NSW defines psychosocial hazards as workplace situations or behaviours that may cause psychological or physical harm through stress or other adverse responses.
Its published guidance identifies common psychosocial hazards employers are expected to manage, including:
- conflict or poor workplace relationships,
- poor procedural justice,
- workplace violence,
- bullying and harassment,
- and unreasonable behaviour within the workplace.
The regulator also states that Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBUs) must consult with workers when identifying and managing psychosocial risks. Guidance specifically refers employers to complaints processes, investigations, incident reporting systems and workplace procedures when assessing whether psychosocial hazards exist and whether current controls are effective.
SafeWork states the Code of Practice: Managing psychosocial hazards at work is an approved code under section 274 of the Work Health and Safety Act and may be relied upon by inspectors when issuing improvement or prohibition notices.
Earlier this month, SafeWork NSW told ABC News it takes psychosocial risks seriously and expects employers to manage them in the same way as any other workplace health and safety issue.
The ABC also reported that both SafeWork NSW and the NSW Office of Local Government had made enquiries regarding the earlier controversy surrounding the exclusion of local media organisations from Council premises.
The question now facing Hawkesbury Council
Mr Carroll’s argument is that if alleged psychosocial harm unfolded during a meeting from which local media had already been excluded, then regulators may need to examine whether the control measures implemented by Council were directed at the actual source of risk.
Council’s public position, as stated by Mr Barton, has been that excluding the media organisations was a necessary preventative step to protect councillors and staff.
Disclosure
The Hawkesbury Gazette discloses that Sean Carroll is a contributor to the Gazette and Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett has familial ties to the publisher. The Gazette maintains editorial independence and publishes this disclosure in the interests of transparency.
