Recently, Hawkesbury Council came to some very unwelcome national attention when the Mayor and the General Manager acted unilaterally to ban all ‘representatives, volunteers or agents’ of the Hawkesbury Gazette and of Hawkesbury Radio from attending Council meetings.
I was appalled by this move. At the very hour we were debating two different motions relating to the issue (the first sought to change our definition of ‘media organisation’ so that neither would qualify, and the second sought to overturn the ban), this story was being broadcast Statewide on Channel 9:
It was mentioned on ABC Radio in that same week:
Here are some of the contributions that ensued in the chamber debate:
My commentary on the above:
Frankly, a government impeding a journalistic organisation from doing their job is a terrible idea. It’s not how we work in Australia, and I’m shocked that our polity has sunk so low that we’ve arrived here. It’s a shameful precedent, and I want no part in it.
Here’s what’s really happened:
Some Councillors are clutching their pearls because they don’t like the way the local paper and the local radio station report on their behavior.
I’ve taken to summarising this as “If you don’t want the media reporting on you doing stupid things, then stop doing stupid things.”
Some Councillors are actually related to the people being banned, but that won’t stop them from trying to move motions that try to redefine what a media organisation really is so that their family member no longer qualifies. Note the Deputy Mayor appearing after me and claiming that neither our oldest radio station nor our oldest paper are media organisations at all! Good luck convincing people of that.
Some Councillors are locked in party-political factional vendettas with the people subject to the ban. And this includes both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. Some people are trying to eliminate rivals or settle scores.
Section 10 of the Local Government Act stipulates that Council meetings should be open, and the only powers to exclude a person get invoked if they are actively disruptive or affect the conduct of the meeting, or impinge on the safety of the people in the room. The closest we’ve ever gotten to that kind of disruption is when some Councillors turn to the media and tell them they ‘have a nerve’ to sit in the press chairs and report on the meetings, or refer to other Councillors as ‘disgusting human beings’ and mock them in front of their colleagues.
Disgraceful. Yet watch them complain the loudest and claim they are the victim.
And there’s so much for the press to report on!
• Rates rising by 39%.
• A pool project that’s $42M over budget.
• The General Manager just resigning.
We need the press more than ever!
I asked the Mayor to ensure he brought a Mayoral Minute so that this monumental move was debated in the Chamber. He declined.
So Councillor Mike Creed, Councillor Shane Djuric and myself jointly brought the Notice of Motion for this to be debated in the chamber. Many Councillors recused themselves because of perceived conflicts of interest.
The rescission motion failed, but that’s OK. I wanted the Councillors who were prepared to hide behind confected outrage about the tone of the journalistic coverage these two organisations offer, but who were perfectly happy to suppress the media because they don’t like it when it talks about them – I wanted them to put their name to it, so we can all see.
Worse, the video of the chamber debate was removed from Council’s website and was absent for 5 days. It was restored when defamatory remarks made by the Deputy Mayor were muted from the video. t was mystifying and concerning to see that the public are now not free to see the debate and make up their own mind, especially when the debate was about Council’s accountability, through the media, to the public. The irony is not lost on me.
This video above of this part of the debate is a little longer than the summaries I usually post, because I want you to have the benefit of hearing what more of the Councillors said. Far from making a mistake by giving some people a platform, I am perfectly happy to allow their words to reach a wider audience and for you to form your own views. I warn you, at times it makes for unpleasant and even upsetting viewing.
For those of you who are concerned that the reason the video was taken down was due to Councillor Creed’s distress; I have spoken to him and he gives his express blessing for this video to be published.
I want to be clear: I don’t always agree with the coverage of these media organisations. Sometimes they do get it wrong. Do you know what I do? I talk to them. I express my disappointment. I use my own reach to put my own view, respectfully.
I wouldn’t ban them. We haven’t followed proper process. We haven’t explored other remedies: defamation law, press complaints, or rights of reply.