Liberal candidate demands probe after fellow councillor didn’t reply to her phone call in three days

THE state Liberal candidate for a new seat demanded a “trivial, ridiculous” code of conduct investigation into a Tea Tree Gully Council colleague because he did not reply to her phone call for three days.

A code of conduct complaint was made against Councillor Matthew Harbinson when he did not return a phone call.

• Onkaparinga council CEO Mark Dowd receives $7000 pay rise
• Onkaparinga mayor labels councillors ‘gutless wonders’
• Marion Council to spend $18m over 10 years on streetscaping

THE state Liberal candidate for a new northern suburbs seat demanded a “trivial, straight-out ridiculous” code of conduct investigation into a Tea Tree Gully Council colleague because he did not reply to her phone call for three days.

Details of councillor Paula Luethen-Soper’s complaint against councillor Matthew Harbinson can be revealed after the council voted to lift the veil of secrecy on the saga, which led to a report by Norman Waterhouse Lawyers in February this year.

The report recommended that Ms Luethen-Soper’s complaint be thrown out and it did not proceed to a formal investigation. It cost ratepayers an estimated $900 to investigate the complaint.

Ms Luethen-Soper was preselected in April by the Liberals for the new seat of King, created in the 2016 electoral redistribution.  It includes Salisbury Heights, Surrey Downs, Greenwith and Golden Grove.

Mr Harbinson — with the support of all elected members except Ms Luethen-Soper, who excused herself from the chamber — voted to make the lawyers’ confidential report available to the public.

Tea Tree Gully councillor Paula Luethen-Soper labelled her fellow councillor’s non-reply ‘distressing’.

Describing the complaint as “trivial, straight-out ridiculous’’, Mr Harbinson said he wanted to “allay fears” and “end the whispers” surrounding the allegation, which had had a “terrible impact” on him.

In the report to the council, Ms Luethen-Soper described Mr Harbinson’s failure to return her phone call promptly as “confusing, distressing and distracting”.

In a statement to the Leader Weekly, Mr Harbinson said Ms Luethen-Soper had phoned him in response to an email he had sent her after he received an anonymous phone call about the closure of The Hive youth centre early last year.

“The caller was upset and accused me of ‘corruption’ ... the councillor responsible for closing The Hive and ‘getting paid for that decision’,” he said.

“When I explained that Hive’s services were still operating, she gave a very simple answer: ‘That’s not what Paula told me’.”

Mr Harbinson said he emailed Ms Luethen-Soper to discuss the phone call. “I ... simply asked if we could discuss it,” he said. “When I didn’t return (her) call (within three days) ... she lodged a code of conduct (complaint).’’

In an email, Ms Luethen-Soper denied having a conversation with a resident suggesting they should contact Mr Harbinson.

“I phoned Cr Harbinson ... as he requested in the email ... It has now been three days and Cr Harbinson has not returned my call,” she wrote.

“I would like it investigated. I would like to know if there is a collaboration between elected members to present unfounded beliefs to me as a tactic to bully and harass me.

“Cr Harbinson’s email to me and then lack of reply to my telephone call is confusing, distressing and distracting.”

Ms Luethen-Soper did not respond to questions put to her from Leader Weekly after the report was made public.