Why Gangemi's motion dump stinks

 

At last week’s council meeting (Feb 21) Councillor Kasby sought to put a motion of urgency to the council in connection with the current NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Impropriety between Agents of The Hills Shire Council and Property Developers in the Region.

The context in which Councillor Kasby sought to put the motion included:

• Very serious allegations made under privilege in NSW parliament last year by Castle Hill Liberal MP Ray Williams;

• Equally serious matters raised in an ABC Four Corners television report last year;

• Attempts by the subsequent parliamentary inquiry to summon witnesses including Hills  Shire Councillor Virginia Ellis and the extensive reporting of the apparent attempts by those witnesses to evade summons.

Here is the text of the motion Councillor Kasby proposed to make:

Urgent Notice of Motion

Moved by Clr. Dr Kasby

That Council notes:

1. The NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Impropriety between Agents of The Hills Shire Council and Property Developers in the Region is currently taking place.

2. Clr. Virginia Ellis, Mr Christian Ellis and Mr Jean-Claude Perrottet were invited to give evidence at a public hearing but failed to respond, despite continued efforts to contact them.

3. The NSW Upper House Portfolio Committee has taken the serious step of issuing a summons for Clr Ellis, Mr Ellis and Mr Perrottet to appear but attempts to serve them have been so far unsuccessful.

In the interest of integrity, accountability and transparency, The Hills Shire Council urges Councillor Virginia Ellis, Mr Christian Ellis and Mr Jean-Claude Perrottet to appear before the inquiry to provide evidence on the matters that led to this inquiry.

Council is of the view that doing so would be in the best interest of the people of The Hills Shire, restoring trust in their local government body and repairing any reputational damage sustained by the Council in regards to these matters.

In our view the proposed motion is entirely justified, reasonable and necessary.  We expect that might be the view of very many people in the Hills, irrespective of political persuasion.  Like us, many will be deeply concerned by these matters and would expect their council to respond in a manner such as proposed in the motion.

Indeed we would be surprised if at least some of the Liberal councillors were not deeply discomforted and embarrassed to see this saga unfold in the way that it has done.  Perhaps they would have supported the motion being considered?  Perhaps they would have supported the motion if it came to a vote?  Because, when left unaddressed, these matters reflect adversely on all of them, and they know it.

Mayor Gangemi denied them the opportunity!

“Not of urgency”?

Gangemi ruled that the motion was “not of urgency”.  He did so without affording Councillor Kasby (or anybody) the opportunity to speak to its urgency.

He also did so solely on the “evidence” of the motion’s text.  Quite correctly in our view, the urgency of the motion is not the subject of the motion and not expressed in the motion text.

Gangemi was wrong to make this ruling without hearing Councillor Kasby or anybody speak to the urgency of the matter.

We do not know how Councillor Kasby proposed to express the urgency of this motion but, in our view, there are self-evident reasons that the urgency to consider this matter cannot be disputed, including:

1. Parliament will be prorogued before the next scheduled ordinary meeting of council.  The opportunity for inquiry hearings and for the witnesses to give evidence will have lapsed.

2. While the matter remains unaddressed by council, severe reputational damage accrues to the council as a whole with each day that the witnesses sought by the inquiry continue to appear to evade summons.

3. The good name and reputation of THSC is contingent upon satisfactory resolution of the matters before the inquiry which can only be achieved in practice if the requested witnesses appear to give evidence.

Very clearly Gangemi has cynically used his power to assert lack of urgency to suppress any debate in council on these deeply troubling matters.  He did so while simultaneously relying on the urgency given in point 1 above to ensure that the matters cannot be adequately considered by the inquiry.  For that he deserves censure.

Should Gangemi have ruled on this matter?

Mayor Gangemi’s name has been explicitly connected with the inquiry:

• Portfolio Committee minutes from February 8th and 15th show that Mr Gangemi was “re-invited” to give evidence before the public hearings.  (Responses from certain other invitees have been published by the inquiry but no response from Mr Gangemi has been published. We do not know why.)

• A document (from an unspecified source) tabled at the inquiry names Mr Gangemi along with Virgina Ellis in connection with a Liberal grouping, “The Reformers”.  The document identifies Christian Ellis as one of the founders of the group.

Further, at the last council election Mayor Gangemi was the Liberal candidate for mayor chosen by the Liberal State Executive to replace the incumbent Michelle Byrne.  The background, processes and motives surrounding his selection are one of the central interests of the inquiry.

We suggest there is a strong case to argue that Mayor Gangemi had a significant, non-pecuniary interest according to Part 5 of council’s Code of Conduct. Mayor Gangemi should have recused himself from consideration of this motion.  Most certainly it was entirely inappropriate for him to make the ruling that he did.

Consequences?

Let it be so.  Let us seek to ensure that it is…

And finally … Deputy Mayor Mark Hodges is standing as the Liberal candidate for Castle Hill electorate.  If they are to have any confidence in him as a potential member, the voters of Castle Hill need to hear from him on these matters.