Editorial: Review of Councillor’s Gag

TONIGHT Councillor Sue Abbott will put forward a change to Council’s media policy to once again allow Councillors to express their own views publicly.

Currently the media policy precludes Councillors expressing their opinions, positions or even speaking to the media on any matter without the express permission of the Mayor or general manager.

Councillors are elected as representatives to be a voice for a range of people on a range of matters in the community, so it is gob-smacking that Council have tried to stifle this fundamental democratic representation.

Elizabeth Flaherty, editor.

It is fair that no Councillor states something is a Council position, without first ensuring it is Council’s position with the Mayor or general manager,  but to actively silence them from expressing their individual views as Councillors is a bridge too far.

For example, it may be Councillor Abbott’s view that she would not like to see any new quarries in the Shire, but the position of the whole Council may be that new quarries are allowed.

So Cr Abbott could say ‘Council’s position is there can be new quarries in the Shire, but I disagree and think we should stop any new quarries.’

But the current policy prevents her from stating her own individual view as a Councillor.

It is a remarkable command and control approach by Council over the Councillors and not in the best interests of the community.

As ratepayers, who have elected the Councillors we should have the right to hear the range of views they hold, there should be active debate on a range of issues so that the community can understand where Councillors stand on issues and how Council formed its position on any matter.

In the motion being put forward tonight, Cr Abbott wrote the following:

“As an elected representative, ratepayers are entitled to know how Councillors voted and/or think about Council matters. Especially the public should know how their elected representatives are thinking individually so that they (the public) can decided whether they (the public) will vote for those Councillors again or not should that opportunity present. The change is not proposing that Councillors speak on behalf of Council.”

It is reasonable for an employee not to be able to speak on behalf of a company without permission, but it is something entirely different for an elected representative to be gagged.

With the notable exception of Cr Josh Brown who is a Labor party representative, all other Councillors ran as independent candidates.

Councillors are not a political party who have to toe a party line, they are meant to be representative of the whole community and have a range of views.

The gag order is not in the interests of the community or the individual elected representatives, so whose interest is it really serving?

Related stories:

• Editorial: No Gaga Order Here March 2, 2017.
• Editorial: Who Is Keeping Who in the Dark? March 10, 2016.

Elizabeth Flaherty

editor of scone.com.au