Long-term councillor and ex-journo found to not understand conflict of interest

Updated 3 days ago by Lauren Richardson

Two councillors from the same municipality were reprimanded by a code of conduct panel for not disclosing conflicts of interest.

Councillor Paul Terrett submitted both complaints against fellow councillors on the Northern Midlands council.

Deputy Mayor Janet Lambert and councillor Alison Andrews were both alleged to have breached sections one and two of the Local Government (Code of Conduct) Order 2024, albeit in slightly different ways.

Cr Andrews failed to declare a conflict of interest regarding motions concerning existing and proposed Longford flood maps at three meetings.

Her property was included in the flood zone in two of three maps looked at.

Former The Examiner journalist, Cr Andrews, said she did not have a conflict of interest due to her journalistic background.

During the investigation, Cr Andrews was asked by the panel if she understood non-pecuniary interest, which part two of the code of conduct order concerns.

"Cr Andrews provided an ambiguous response to the question," the determination statement said.

A prior complaint, also lodged by Cr Terrett, found she had breached the code relating to conflict of interest.

At the time, she apologised and said she would familiarise herself with the requirements of the code.

"The Panel asked Cr Andrews what action she took to familiarise herself with Part 2 of the Code. Cr Andrews replied by saying she had viewed the local government module adding that she now understood conflict of interest," the determination statement said.

The panel determined she did not understand what the meaning of bias or a non-pecuniary conflict of interest was, pertaining to withdrawing from issues where a conflict exists, whether it was real or perceived.

"The more she spoke about her connection to her family history and the family home it became obvious that a reasonable person would perceive a conflict," it stated.

"Cr Andrews' continual denial that she may be perceived as biased in her decision-making or had any conflict in relation to this agenda item leads the Panel to conclude that she does not understand the meaning of bias or a non-pecuniary conflict of interest and as such determine that she has breached the Code."

The second complaint

Cr Lambert was also found to have breached the code of conduct by not leaving the meeting, and engaging in debate on a meeting item, after having declared a conflict of interest.

The motion concerned the general manager, mayor and deputy mayor standing aside pending the outcome of an Integrity Commission and Tasmania Police investigation.

The motion determined the continuation of their roles would adversely impact the Northern Midlands Council's reputation, and the community's confidence in it.

The motion also concerned investigation into allegations of "illegal and arguably corrupt conduct", misuse of council funds, destruction of records, and the use of council funds for private legal fees.

Cr Lambert said during the investigation she had said she "might" have a non-pecuniary interest in the item, because she had not yet decided whether she had such an interest or not.

Cr Lambert told the panel her declaring an interest was "an untrue statement", and that Cr Terrett was "misleading" the Panel.

Cr Terrett said his complaint was based on the minutes recorded at the January 2025 meeting, which were confirmed by the council in February.

It is noted in the minutes that Cr Lambert declared an interest in the item, alongside the general manager and mayor.

Both other women are noted in the January minutes to have left the meeting, but Cr Lambert stayed, tabled evidence for her argument, and voted against the motion.

The investigation stated she believed she would not have been "doing her job" if she had not provided new information to council during the debate.

An adjournment could have been requested by Cr Lambert for her to do so, or sent to councillors prior to the meeting, without her being at the table, the report said.

Cr Lambert said she was acting in the community's best interest and facilitating communication to council in acting how she did.

The panel determined she should have acted differently and "failed to give genuine and impartial consideration" to being named in the motion which, if passed, "would have a detrimental effect on her reputation as a councillor".

Her 15 years on council without a conduct complaint upheld against her was a mitigating factor, but the panel noted despite this length of time she "does not have a clear notion of the meaning of conflict of interest and the requirements of the code of conduct".

In both instances the panel questioned whether Cr Terrett had sufficiently attempted to resolve the conflict prior to submission.

In one instance, the panel stated the attempt had been "lacklustre", and the complaint possibly could have been avoided.

Both councillors were cautioned and required to complete training on conflict of interest.