Councillors had to sit through a blitz of questions on notice from Cr Katie Milne last week, and they got rather cranky. But if they had been doing their job properly they would have applauded rather than criticised. Cr Milne’s tactic highlighted the huge gap between the theory of accountability and its actual practice in Tweed Shire Council.

When voters elect their councillors they rightly expect them to represent the interest of the broad community. This includes asking questions of staff about issues raised by residents, farmers or business people, which may have escaped the gaze of the council’s managers. Councillors normally email staff or speak to them privately, and have always been free to relay responses to interested parties, unless it breaches normal strict confidentiality rules covering everything from possible commercial advantages to personal issues.

But under changes to the media laws last year, councillors are at risk of being hauled before a costly conduct review panel if they inform anyone of advice given by staff, even if new information may possibly allay any concerns.
This is because of a cracker of a clause in council’s media policy making it a punishable offence for any councillor to release information to the public – unless it’s already been publicly released.
So it’s easy to understand the logic of Greens Party councillor Katie Milne’s claims about her decision to unleash an unprecedented number of questions on notice, all of which required laborious written responses from staff.
Cr Milne says until last week she also followed other councillors’ practice of seeking advice informally, but quickly realised she could be in the firing line if she made the information public.

She first came to the notice of the conduct police after releasing the timetable for a process to choose a community representative on the government’s controversial joint regional planning panel, but was found to have no case to answer.
As a result, the council’s media policy was given its Catch 22-twist, ushering in a new era of information control that would be the envy of district governors throughout China and North Korea.
It not only prevents councillors from relaying non-confidential information gleaned form staff, but also prohibits anything else picked up during council workshops and even public meetings.
When Milne defiantly released a council impact assessment of the Repco rally, her colleagues pounced, claiming she had breached the new media rules. Her claim of public interest proved justified when staff released the report a week later, and she escaped with a mild knuckle-wrap.

Having been twice-bitten, who can blame her for wanting staff to provide answers in writing so she no longer has to open her mouth and risk further persecution?
While some of her questions were questionable, others zeroed in on issues of great community concern. They included alleged shortfalls in the consultation process and developer contributions for three new communities housing around 25,000 newcomers, adding to strains on infrastructure shared currently by 60,000 in the northeast corner of the shire.
It may be more productive to seek answers in the traditional way, but if she risks being hammered a third time for releasing information unless it’s already out there, who can blame her for adopting a leftfield approach?

The media policy is a total farce. It even stops councillors replying honestly to media inquiries, as former mayor Joan van Lieshout found out when she revealed a rift with council boss Mike Rayner over his potential conflict of interest with the Repco rally.
It’s time to bring the policy back into line with most other councils, where councillors, or at least the mayor or deputy, are allowed to answer questions without fear of providing any information beyond that contained in council agendas or its weekly newsletter, the Tweed Link.
It is a pity that, with the honourable exception of Cr Milne, our elected representatives appear too cowed by council staff to tackle this very awkward problem.