Brendan Simpkins

SUBSTANTIAL debate on councillors’ access to legal advice filled the Gawler Council chamber last month – leaving a number of motions on notice on the table.

Only one motion on notice was voted on before the meeting was adjourned, with councillor Ian Tooley’s proposal for a legal advice for council members policy extensively discussed.

Cr Tooley’s motion sought for council to acknowledge Regulation 78A of the Local Government Act 1999 which states that an elected member may obtain legal advice at council’s expense.

Council was also asked to obtain examples of policies that other councils have in place for members, with the aim to develop a draft policy for consideration.

The motion was moved by Cr Tooley and seconded by Cr Paul Little.

Speaking on the motion, Cr Tooley said it was about exercising rights as elected members.

“There will be times and there are times when we need to (seek independent advice),” he said

“We are not beholden to this administration, they are beholden to us.”

Some elected members expressed their concerns with the potential implications a legal policy could have in future, despite the motion being carried.

Cr Cody Davies was concerned that the policy could result in exuberant legal fees at council’s expense.

“I’m a bit concerned about the idea of back and forth legal advice piling up,” he said.

“Presumably other councils aren’t running with policies that are bankrupting them.

“There has to be a limit, we can’t just bankrupt council seeking endless legal advice.”

Cr David Hughes also expressed concerns about the financial impact it could have, stating that he was satisfied with the system already in place.

Cr Nathan Shanks said that a policy could be useful, however that there needed to be caution that it wasn’t abused.

“Let’s look into it, let’s figure out if this has some merit and if it does, just maybe we might be able to even the playing field a little bit and contribute into making sure that we are both coming in as confident as each other, if we are in opposing views,” he said.

Both Cr’s Paul Koch and Kelvin Goldstone spoke firmly against the motion, with the latter stating that he “did not support the intent” of the motion.

Councillors debated for about 35 minutes before the motion was carried.