Bundaberg Council dodges questions on ratepayer funding of Mayor Jack Dempsey’s legal fees

Bundaberg council has refused to say if the mayor used ratepayer funds to pay an experienced city lawyer to represent him in proceedings where he was found to be in contempt of parliament.

Bundaberg Regional Council has refused to say if Mayor Jack Dempsey’s legal fees to Brisbane barrister James Dillon for the investigation that found him guilty of contempt of parliament were funded by ratepayers.

Bundaberg Regional Council has refused to say if Mayor Jack Dempsey’s legal fees for an investigation that found him guilty of contempt of parliament were ratepayer-funded.

Mr Dempsey engaged Brisbane barrister James Dillon as his Counsel for the investigation, with a 22-page submission prepared by Mr Dillon included in the Ethics Committee report tabled in parliament on May 25.

The report also included a transcript from a hearing where Mr Dempsey said he obtained legal advice asserting that he had a legal obligation to obtain councillor Greg Barnes’ confidential submission because it accused him of misconduct.

‘Massive shock’: Wide Bay’s worst car theft suburbs revealed

The report does not state if that advice was provided by Mr Dillon.

While the cost of Mr Dillon’s services is not known, a 2020 article by the Queensland Bar Association stated that most new barristers charged around $2000 per day or $200 per hour, with the rate increasing as the barrister gains experience.

Mr Dillon’s LinkedIn states that he has nearly 12 years’ experience as a barrister in private practice, and has specialised in local government law since 2004.

Mr Dillon’s LinkedIn states that he has nearly 12 years’ experience as a barrister in private practice, and has specialised in local government law since 2004.

This publication sent several questions to the council including if Mr Dempsey’s legal fees were ratepayer-funded or if he paid for them personally.

The council was also asked if chief executive Steve Johnston obtained Mr Barnes’ submission by accessing his emails, and if so, what policy or guidelines makes this permissible.

A council response to questions relating to Mr Barnes’ submission said, “if you read and understand the report, (these) questions ... have been answered”.

However they did not respond to questions on Mr Dempsey’s legal fees.

“Council has no further comment,” they said.

The report states given he had not told anyone about his submission, Mr Barnes “surmised” that Mr Dempsey had obtained it either by a person accessing his emails, or by a member of the State Development and Regional Industries Committee to whom Mr Barnes had sent the submission.

The committee chair obtained assurances from its members and staff that thye had not disclosed the submission to anyone.

The report states Mr Johnston obtained the submission under the protection of council’s Acceptable Requests Guidelines Policy.

Rodeo, rides, record line-up: Big crowd expected at Bundy Show

The Acceptable Requests Guidelines Policy states that the mayor may give a direction to the chief executive in order to obtain advice or information, and that the information must be shared with all councillors when it relates to a complaint made to the Office of the Independent Assessor.

The policy does not contain any guidelines explicitly related to the permissibility of accessing a council employee’s emails.

The submission prepared by Mr Dillon argued that Mr Dempsey was not guilty of contempt, but stated that if the Ethics Committee found him to have committed contempt an apology should suffice as punishment.

Mr Dempsey was found to have committed contempt of parliament by obtaining and disclosing Mr Barnes’ confidential submission.

“The committee notes that the fact the Mayor sought legal advice, and then sought permission, or at least informed the SDRIC of his intention to provide the submission to the OIA and the CCC, shows that he had some understanding of the privileged nature of committee documents,” the report reads.

Mr Dempsey apologised in a letter sent to the Ethics Committee on May 12.

Mr Dillon has been contacted for comment.