Council
20 October, 2025
Livestream question dominates debate on Draft Code of Meeting Practice
Should Wingecarribee Shire Council have the power to edit its live webcast recording? That was the question that dominated debate over council’s Draft Code of Meeting Practice and Draft Public Forum Policy at last Wednesday’s meeting.
Should Wingecarribee Shire Council have the power to edit its live webcast recording?
That was the question that dominated debate over council’s Draft Code of Meeting Practice and Draft Public Forum Policy at last Wednesday’s meeting.
Councillor David Kent described the documents as “reasonably vanilla” and moved the staff recommendation that they be placed on public exhibition.
Cr Rachel Russell moved an amendment relating to Clause 5.35 in the Draft Code of Meeting Practice.
The clause states: “A webcast or recording can be altered after it is recorded to remove any content that is not suitable for public broadcast or that may expose the council to a potential legal liability”.
Cr Russell wanted the clause removed.
“I recognise the care for council behind this proposal however I wish to highlight what I believe to be the inconsistencies and risks,” Cr Russell said.
“I believe the inclusion is at odds with the maintenance of orderly conduct and the intentions of Minister (for Local Government) Hoenig in this revised code.
“We have just come out of administration and a Performance Improvement Order (PIO). If our previous council had allowed themselves to edit out behaviour as they saw fit, what would that have meant? At whose judgement?
“How can this proposal be purported to be walking the talk on accountability and transparency?” Cr Russell asked.
“We have come out of a PIO and have undergone a comprehensive induction system.
“During that time we have had the extra protection of our webcasts at times being edited. However now we have come of age it is time for the training wheels to come off.
“Commitment to the integrity of livestream recording supports all council – councillors and staff alike – to conduct ourselves to the standards set by our oaths of office and this Code of Meeting Practice. We have all taken these oaths and made these commitments.
“If we are all as marvellous as we believe ourselves to be (with) the regular backslapping that goes on, there should be no instance where we have anything to fear about what we say within the public forum and working environment of a council, including in our breaks: frank and fearless.
“If someone does do something where there are potential legal implications, that’s a matter for Code of Conduct proceedings or the court – not for censorship,” she said.
Cr Sara Moylan asked what might be considered unsuitable for public broadcast and was advised by council’s acting general manager Shelley Jones that it would include something that might result in defamation action being bought against council.
Staff also advised the clause was in line with guidance from the Office of Local Government.
Cr Moylan said she could understand why council would want to protect itself from potential defamation claims, but it was also important to protect councillors, council staff and members of the public gallery from the same thing, “in which case we need a true and accurate record of the meeting in the livestream to be publicly available”.
She said inclusion of the clause was “flying in the face of transparency”.
When Cr Russell’s amendment was lost, Cr Moylan moved a new amendment seeking to remove existing restrictions on the number of Notices of Motion and Questions on Notice that councillors are able to table at each meeting.
She said the “general thrust” of the Draft Code of Meeting Practice was about freedom of speech but councillors were unable to engage in free speech or political discussion “if we are restricted in what we do here (in the chamber)”.
“We can’t do this if we are restricted to one Notice of Motion per meeting and one Question on Notice per meeting,” Cr Moylan said.
“We are at a time when we are getting rid of a lot of committees and there is a select few who can speak at public forums.
“We have only had elected representatives for a year now after a lot of years without that representation and now if we are looking at restricting what they say, how long they speak for and how many notices of motion they bring to the chamber then it completely flies in the face of what these changes are about and certainly what the Minister (for Local Government) is about.
“I think we need to encourage councillors to do their job and to advocate for the community as the Local Government Act requires them to do, to be the communicator between council and the community, and we can’t do that if we’re restricted in what we can actually bring to the chamber,” she said.
Cr Moylan’s proposed amendment was also lost.
When the original motion was put, Cr Russell urged members of the community to have input on the draft code of meeting practice – particularly on the issue of livestreaming.
“Our meetings are livestreamed, members of the community are here, therefore if any behaviour is of potential concern it’s already in the public domain – even if it’s in a break,” she said.
“The horse has bolted and the rumour mill can be far more damaging than the truth. The truth sets us free.
“I believe editing the livestream stinks of a cover-up and cronyism and risks greater reputational damage by creating suspicion that council is not transparent or accountable,” Cr Russell said.
“To my mind undermining trust is for more damaging than the potential ‘flash in the plan’ caused if someone is caught on hot mic letting off steam.
“That just provides an opportunity for personal and professional growth. It is our imperfections and how we grow through them that makes us interesting and develops character.
“Growth can only occur by being honest with ourselves, each other and our community and that’s demonstrated when we own up and apologise, when we know we haven’t been our best selves or when we have made a mistake and not hiding behind what may be perceived as a council protection racket.”
Cr Moylan said the Minister for Local Government had referred regularly to the right of councillors to political communication and freedom of speech.
She said the draft documents were ‘invalid’ if they were inconsistent with the right to political communication.
“Transparency of decision-making is critical and it creates an environment where each councillor feels free to think individually and promotes optimal decision-making,” she said.
Cr Moylan said she was opposed to livestreams being edited because “we need to be confident in what we’re saying and we are in a democracy”.
The original staff recommendation was carried and the Draft Code of Meeting Practice and Draft Public Forum Policy will be placed on public exhibition for comment.
Read More: Southern Highlands