Skip to main content
Home
  • The Legislative Assembly meets on 16/04/2024 (01:00 PM)
    Assembly sit 16/04/2024
  • The Legislative Council meets on 16/04/2024 (01:00 PM)
    Council sit 16/04/2024
  • The Public Administration meets on 08/04/2024 (10:00 AM)
    Committee meet 08/04/2024

Parliamentary Questions


Question On Notice No. 6478 asked in the Legislative Assembly on 15 October 2020 by Mr S.K. L'estrange

Question Directed to the: Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts
Parliament: 40 Session: 1


Question

I refer to the Show Cause Notice delivered to the Town of Cambridge on 26 May 2020, in which you write “1. I suspect that the Council has failed to ensure that Council members have an understanding of and observe their respective roles, such that the Town’s employees rather than Council members undertake administrative and operational functions. In particular a) At meetings held on 7 February 2018, 15 May 2018, 28 August 2018 and 9 April 2020, Council: i. passed motions appointing specific lawyers or law firms to act for or provide advice to the Town ii. did not observe any procurement processes or purchasing policy when engaging legal services; and iii. authorised the Mayor to provide instructions directly to Lawyers;”, and I ask:
(a) Without disclosing the author of any evidence you received, how many witnesses provided evidence to you, and on what date(s), in relation to:
(i) (1)(a)(i) above;
(ii) (1)(a)(ii) above; and
(iii) (1)(a)(iii) above;
(b) Was any evidence received which was provided on behalf of an organisation(s)? If yes, what organisation and on what dates(s) in relation to:
(i) (1)(a)(i) above;
(ii) (1)(a)(ii) above; and
(iii) (1)(a)(iii) above;
(c) Prior to issuing the Show Cause Notice on 26 May 2020, did you notify the Town of Cambridge Council that you had received this evidence, and if yes, when did you notify them;
(d) Prior to issuing the Show Cause Notice on 26 May 2020, did you provide an opportunity for the Mayor and/or Councillors of the Town of Cambridge to respond to the evidence you received:
(i) If yes, who did you receive responses from and on what date(s); and
(ii) If you are unable to provide names for (i) above, how many Councillors did you receive a response from which directly related to the evidence you received; and
(e) If no to (d), how was procedural fairness provided to the Mayor and Council of the Town of Cambridge to respond to the evidence you received?

Answered on 19 November 2020

(a) I refer to the Report of the Inquiry into the Town of Cambridge Finding 5 and paragraphs 87 – 90 and 108 – 116. 

Finding 05: By authorising the Mayor to undertake administrative tasks, council have failed to ensure good governance processes with respect to procuring law firms and the appropriate allocation of the Town’s finances. 

87. At a Special Council Meeting on 7 February 2018, council:

a. passed motions appointing specific lawyers or law firms to act for or provide advice to the Town;

b. authorised the Mayor to provide instructions directly to lawyers; and

c. did not observe any procurement processes or purchasing policy when

d. engaging legal services.

88. At a Special Council Meeting on 15 May 2018, council:

a. passed motions appointing specific lawyers or law firms to act for or provide advice to the Town;

b. authorised the Mayor to provide instructions directly to lawyers; and

c. did not observe any procurement processes or purchasing policy when engaging legal services.

89. At an Ordinary Council Meeting on 28 August 2018, council:

a. passed motions appointing specific lawyers or law firms to act for or provide advice to the Town;

b. authorised the Mayor to provide instructions directly to lawyers; and

c. did not observe any procurement processes or purchasing policy when engaging legal services.

90. At an Ordinary Council Meeting on 9 April 2020, council:

a. passed motions appointing specific lawyers or law firms to act for or provide advice to the Town;

b. authorised the Mayor to provide instructions directly to lawyers; and

c. did not observe any procurement processes or purchasing policy when engaging legal services.

108. At a council Meeting on 7 February 2018, council resolved to engage a law firm and a barrister with fees associated being approved as unbudgeted expenditure. Emails identify that Mayor Shannon had been in discussions with the law firm involved prior to the motion being debated at the council meeting.

109. The motion did not provide a quote for the cost of works to be provided by the law firm and the amount of unbudgeted expenditure was left open. 

110. On 8 February 2018, an elected member sent an email to all Councillors and the CEO stating (in part):

“it appears Council has approved an unbudgeted blank cheque for an ill-defined scope of works with no clear timeframes and no clear understanding of how the work is to be managed or the accountability mechanisms...’ 

111. The email sought clarification from Mayor Shannon in relation to a number of issues concerning the motion passed by council, in particular:

a. What measures will be put in place to ensure transparency with regard to the instruction and the conduct of the investigations?

b. Why that particular law firm?

c. Why the lawyers/counsel requested?

d. Will council be provided with a copy of correspondence between the Mayor and the law form?

e. Is it good governance to approve unbudgeted expenditure without any indication as to cost of the commitment?

f. Can a cost estimate be provided so initial provision can be made for the unbudgeted item?

g. Will an update be provided at each council meeting regarding the costs incurred? 

112. On 9 February 2018, Mayor Shannon responded to the above email stating ‘I note that you did have an opportunity to speak at the meeting, however you chose to ask a question without speaking to the motion. As the motion has passed and is a decision of council, I do not intend to descend into further discussion about the merits and detail behind the motion’. 

113. During an interview with Authorised Persons on 6 September 2018, Mayor Shannon was asked whether she had any prior relationship with any person at the law firm engaged. 

114. Mayor Shannon replied “I had met [name] before, I obviously worked at Browns in the past and [name] worked for a partner that worked there – well, she worked for us. So yeah, they were just an employment law firm that had sufficient resources and the size to undertake an investigation. We could have picked any number of firms. But usually you go on people that you think are quite good.” 

115. Mayor Shannon was asked “Did you obtain any quotes of any other law firm to engage?” to which Mayor Shannon replied “No”. 

116. In the interview, Mayor Shannon stated ‘the tendering policy is something for the Administration’ and as an Elected Member she was not provided with policies that apply to the Town’s employees, therefore, she was not required to abide by the Town’s procurement policy.

(b) No

(c-d) No

(d)(i-ii) Not applicable

(e) Please refer to Legislative Assembly question on notice 6477