Surf Coast Shire councillor Paul Barker challenges suspension in Supreme Court
A local councillor has launched legal action against his own shire in a bid to overturn misconduct findings that followed a failed push to reinstate Australia Day celebrations and disagreement over the crowd at a truth-telling event.
A local councillor has launched Supreme Court legal action against the shire he represents in a bid to quash a suspension stemming from a January 26 truth-telling event and a heated meeting in which a push to reinstate Australia Day celebrations was shot down.
Paul Barker was in September suspended for a month from his role as a Surf Coast Shire councillor after an investigation by internal arbiter Diana Price found him guilty on two counts of misconduct.
Ms Price was engaged following an application from then mayor Mike Bodsworth after Mr Barker disputed the shire’s claim that “around 2500” people attended the January 26 Pilk Purriyn event in Torquay.
The suspension also related to an email Mr Barker sent councillors and the Geelong Advertiser at 10.27pm on February 25 following a fiery council meeting where a push by former councillor Rebecca Bourke to reinstate Australia Day celebrations failed.
“The behaviour of attendees and the lack of control of poor behaviour was unacceptable tonight,” the email stated.
“I’d like to know what sort of review will occur to ensure it doesn’t happen again.”
Mr Bodsworth cited “concerns raised by members of the community” and complaints made by other councillors.
Ms Price is listed as a defendant alongside the shire in an originating motion that was filed last month on Mr Barker’s behalf by his former council colleague Heather Wellington, who declined to comment.
Ms Wellington established Paritas Local Law – a legal firm specialising in local government issues – after she did not seek re-election at last year’s council election.
Mr Barker claims the misconduct finding should be disregarded and he be treated “as not having been suspended from the office of councillor”.
He also argues his $3000-plus monthly allowance be paid by the shire.
Central to the case will be whether Mr Barker’s comments constituted “robust public debate of issues in a democracy”.
He believes Ms Price made an “error of law” because her ruling did not adequately explain “the path of reasoning” that led to the misconduct decision.
Mr Barker took issue with a media release from the shire that began: “Around 2500 people gathered on Wadawurrung Country at Cosy Corner Torquay today, 26 January, as the sun rose at Warri Dja – Sea Country.”
On January 30, Mr Barker posted to a Surf Coast community Facebook page: “What do you think the numbers are? Count for yourself and let me know.”
He accused the council of “not being honest” and questioned if residents could “trust them … in other areas”.
“It’s clear some people don’t understand the importance of the truth,” he wrote.
“My concern is that if Council is not being honest with these numbers, can you trust them to be honest in other areas?”
Surf Coast chief Robyn Seymour said the arbitration process was not connected to council and the shire was “exploring whether it needs to be an active participant in the proceedings, with a view to seeing whether it can minimise the cost to ratepayers”.
“There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by council,” she said.
Ms Price was contacted for comment.
More Coverage
Originally published as Surf Coast Shire councillor Paul Barker challenges suspension in Supreme Court
