I was asked on FM103.1 this week, how Council could suddenly find the Concerns Notice issued under instruction of the General Manager in 2023, when previously, in responding to the McNeill v Clarence Valley Council [20224] NSWCARTAD 325 matter, it could not.
In 2024, Mr McNeill lodged a GIPA application seeking access to a "Concerns Notice" and related documents. Following searches of Council's ECM system and consultation with staff, no Concerns Notice was identified as a Council record.
The applicant lodged the matter to NCAT, which on 7 November 2024 affirmed Council's decision. Leave to appeal was later granted, and the decision was set aside.
In accordance with the appeal orders of 5 August 2025, Council conducted an extensive review of emails on the Outlook email system as well as to and from Ms Laura Black, including correspondence with Mr Julien Castaldi of Sparke Helmore Lawyers, to identify any records within scope.
Several emails containing legal advice were identified. Some were Council records, and others were personal communications under the GIPA Act definition. In relation to these emails, Ms Black confirmed that she will not waive her legal professional privilege.
The Concerns Notice specifically referenced in the GIPA/NCAT proceedings was located in personal correspondence, and Ms Black consented to it being treated as a Council record and considered for release.
Once a Council record, the public interest test under section 13 of the GIPA Act was applied, and Council determined that:
- Portions of the Concerns Notice had already been released by the recipient of the Concerns Notice, and the applicant held a copy.
- The matter is over two years old, minimising any risk to current Council operations.
- The balance of transparency and accountability outweighed factors relating to privilege and privacy.
Accordingly, Council determined it appropriate to release the Concerns Notice as a Council record in line with the GIPA Act and the public interest test, with personal details redacted.
As indicated in debate during the EOM on Monday 3 November 2025, many would be aware Ms Black's legal team advised she had a strong defamation case and recommended pursuit in court. Ms Black chose not to pursue the defamation, and it is regrettable her goodwill has not been reciprocated.
Daily I hear the comments of residents telling me enough is enough, there are many important things councillors should be focused on, and this is not one of them. As I stated in my Mayoral Minute tabled Monday 3 November, which was resolved unanimously, there are some very significant achievements under the leadership of Ms Black, and I will continue my public support of her.
