Northern Midland Council unrest continues

Calls for an Integrity Commission and Police investigation, the results of a Supreme Court ruling, social media comments and a forced apology all became fuel for the fire at a heated Northern Midlands Council meeting on Monday night (December 20).

Sparking the infighting was a motion by Northern Midlands Councillor Andrew McCullagh which called for Mayor Mary Knowles, deputy mayor Janet Lambert and general manager Des Jennings to stand aside pending the outcome of Integrity Commission and Tasmania Police investigations.

It later emerged that Cr McCullagh had already made a report to Police last year, alleging Cr Lambert had unlawfully taken $11,000 from the council coffers to pay for private legal advice to prepare a code of conduct complaint against Cr McCullagh.

Cr Lambert said that eight months after the report was made she has not been contacted by Police.

Cr McCullagh said he’s also already complained to the Tasmanian Integrity Commission and that “they’re already all over it, it will be done”.

Mr McCullagh’s recent Supreme Court win against Mayor Knowles and Mr Jennings, which resulted in them having to pay back at least $135,000 in legal fees spent on pursing a defamation suit against him, has done nothing to appease their antagonist.

He said that the mayor, deputy mayor and general manager continuing in their current positions is “untenable and adversely impacts on the reputation of the Northern Midlands Council and undermines the community confidence in the Council”.

He has since also publicly stated there is a “potential misuse of office … as it was discovered unofficial meetings were held using Council resources in an attempt to remove me from Council”.

Mr McCullagh’s motion was eventually lost with Crs Terret and Brooks supporting the motion while Crs Andrews, Lambert, Goss, Adams and Archer were in opposition.

The lengthy motion called for an increase in scrutiny and disclosure of how Council obtains its expert advice and utilises ratepayer money for private legal expenses, increased transparency around how funds are used and recovered if improperly used, and also requested the Council does not destroy, delete or alter recordings of Council meetings in the future. 

The motion was pushed back in the agenda to give the general public a chance to speak on the topic during question time ahead of the motion being tabled.

Cr Allison Andrews also took the opportunity early in the meeting to distribute a written apology to the Council in the presence of Cr McCullagh, saying she was being threatened with legal action if she did not do so.

It read: “During the Council meeting that took place on 9th December, 2024, I stated that Councillor McCullagh had bullied and harassed and defamed Mayor Mary Knowles and the Council’s General Manger Des Jennings which would not have occurred if they had been two private people.

“I apologise completely to Councillor McCullagh for any hurt or damage that he has suffered by my words and I retract them.”

Ahead of the reading of the motion, local resident Neil Tubb voiced his feelings about that same meeting which included another lost motion, this one from Cr Paul Terret, requesting an independent investigation into the “misuse of council finances”.

Mr Tubb said the discussion was “appalling” and that some councillors were not on the “same page when it comes to team spirit”.

“This is a clear indication that the Northern Midlands Council lacks cohesion and leadership and it appears the recent independent investigation into council’s governance and meeting procedures has not worked.”

Another Longford resident, John Izzard, also spoke, saying he was “appalled and distressed regarding the proposed motion listed for tonight’s council meeting whereby councillors are being asked to vote on a proposal which may result in the Minister for Local Government sacking the mayor, councillors and the general manager and appointing an administrator”.

“Corrupt conduct, as defined in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, is deliberate or intentional wrongdoing, not negligence or a mistake,” he said.

Declaring an interest the Mayor and General Manager vacated the council chambers while Cr McCullagh’s motion was tabled, and Cr Lambert took the chair during discussions which became heated and resulted in shouting, many cries of point of order and Cr Lambert barely able to wrestle back control as accusations and counter accusations flew across the table.

Cr Lambert eventually vacated the chair so she could have a say, and both Cr Archer and Cr Richard Goss were nominated to stand in as chair, resulting in a ballot that saw Cr Archer take the position.

Cr Lambert said she would not stand down from her position on council and asked for proof that Cr McCullagh had in fact spoken to Police (which he provided).

She said she was offended by his Facebook post that referred to the Council as “corrupt” and also references to Local Government minister Kerry Vincent and Premier Jeremy Rockliff in which Mr McCullagh said they “continue to confirm their complicit activities in a corrupt government”.

“Why are you, Cr McCullagh, asking for yet another investigation, are you saying that all previous investigations and investigators have not done their due diligence, have potentially acted unlawful in coming to the conclusions they have pertaining to his matter?” she asked.

Determined to read her pre-written statement without constant interruption, she was granted two extensions to her time limit to speak.

Cr McCullagh later told The Northern Courier that he never expected the motion to get up, but it achieved its aim of revealing “who votes where” as well as showing “the true colour of some of the councillors”.

Yesterday deputy mayor Janet Lambert called on all elected Council members to focus on the interests of the community.

“Council has rejected the allegations contained in a motion to council on Monday night,” she said.

“At all times council has acted with propriety and in good faith.

“Focusing on allegations like this, risks taking away from the bigger picture of what amazing things this council is achieving.”

Cr Lambert said matters raised by Cr McCullagh during Monday’s council meeting had previously been examined by an independent investigator appointed by the Office of Local Government, which found no evidence to support the allegations.

 She said the motion confused two distinct issues: the events and legal costs related to a 2023 Code of Conduct complaint against him, and a Supreme Court decision on legal costs arising from defamation action taken by the mayor and general manager.

She explained that $11,000 in legal costs associated with the 2023 Code of Conduct complaint had been incorrectly categorised in the motion as private legal advice.

These costs were recently repaid by the Council’s legal counsel, Simmons Wolfhagen.

Cr McCullagh claims the Andrew Paul investigation had no terms of reference to investigate the defamation and Council expenditure matter.

“When Councillors Archer and Andrews suggest that there has already been an inquiry into this, or simply Council don’t need another enquiry, it is simply not true,” he said.

“That message is there to deceive ratepayers that this matter has been independently investigated … it has not.”

Cr Lambert also said allegations regarding the destruction or deletion of records were incorrect and that council had simply followed procedures consistent with the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 in relation to the recording of closed sessions of council meetings.

 “The amounts to be reimbursed to the Council, as directed by the Supreme Court in relation to legal costs for the separate defamation action brought by the Mayor and General Manager against Councillor McCullagh, are still being finalised,” she said.

“Ultimately it is up to the Court to assess the amounts that are to be paid by all parties.

“Council, acting in good faith and based on legal advice, had voted to fund the legal costs of the defamation action.

“However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Local Government Act did not permit the use of Council funds for this purpose.

“The Northern Midlands Council accepts and acknowledges the Court’s decision.”