The new Code of Meeting Practice

There have been a several changes made to the Code of Meeting Practice. While many of these will be welcome and provide more transparency into Council’s decision-making, the restriction on remote attendance is a retrograde step. The new Clauses 5.19 and 5.20 are very restrictive –

 5.19 Councillors may attend and participate in meetings of the council and committees of the council by audiovisual link with the approval of the council or the relevant committee where they are prevented from attending the meeting in person because of ill-health or other medical reasons or because of unforeseen caring responsibilities.

 5.20 Clause 5.19 does not apply to meetings at which a mayoral election is to be held.

There are several motions proposed for debate at the LGNSW Annual Conference that relate to the provisions of Clause 5.19. Annual_Conference_Business_Paper_2025.pdf    (pp 145-148) which provide good arguements as to why these Clauses are highly problematic.

Provisions that make it more difficult to attend and participate in council meetings undermine diversity, inclusion, and accessibility. Where individual councils are able to accommodate remote attendance, they should have the discretion to adopt provisions that allow it.

I have written to the Minister for Local Government, Ron Heonig MP, about this and urge you to do the same if you want to ensure a diverse and inclusive governing body. The requirement that there are NO remote AV allowances for a meeting where a Mayoral vote takes place (clause 5.20) is very problematic. It creates a risk to public health and fairness -  Councillors who are sick but wish to ensure their vote counts may feel pressured to attend in person. This creates clear health and safety risks (for both councillors and staff) and is inconsistent with post-pandemic norms of safe workplace practice. It creates barriers to carers and inclusivity - Carers of children, elderly parents, or persons with disability who cannot arrange care may be effectively excluded from participating. This contradicts the principles of accessibility and diversity outlined in the OLG’s own “Guidelines for Inclusive Council Decision-Making.” It also creates the potential for manipulation - Because mayoral votes often depend on narrow margins, the restriction creates opportunity for mischief or coercion. For example, obstructing a councillor’s attendance could influence an election outcome.

If you care about access and diversity, and true representation at a local government level, I urge you to write to the Minister. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about the proposed changes.

As one of our fellow NSROC Councils, Ku-Ring-Gai puts it;

“The imposition of these unnecessary restrictions ignores the successful operation of remote and hybrid council meetings over recent years. Online and hybrid meetings are now the norm in government and corporate working environments, and modern technology allows meetings to run smoothly without any significant impact on the effectiveness or the respectability of the meeting.

By severely limiting remote attendance, the clause may constitute a form of indirect discrimination under the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, particularly on the grounds of sex and disability.

These restrictions on attendance disproportionately affect women and those with ongoing health issues or needs for reasonable adjustment. The clause may contravene the principles outlined in the Carers (Recognition) Act 2010 by failing to appropriately support and recognise the role of Councillors who are carers, especially when caring responsibilities are known or ongoing rather than “unforeseen”.

The failure to provide reasonable, flexible remote attendance options may violate the principles of accessibility and inclusion established under the Disability Inclusion Act 2014, which requires all public authorities (including councils) to take reasonable measures to ensure people with disability can participate fully in the community and that services and facilities are accessible.

The mandatory requirement to disclose highly personal medical details to council staff to justify remote attendance raises concerns regarding the handling of sensitive personal information under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002.

The restrictive provisions fail to acknowledge the unique geographical and logistical realities in regional and remote councils. Mandatory in-person attendance imposes undue burden and cost due to exceptionally long travel distances, reliance on unreliable regional transport and increased risk of travel during natural disasters or adverse weather. This disproportionately discourages participation in rural councils and may lead to loss of quorum during flooding or other extreme weather events – precisely when councils need to come together swiftly to respond and provide relief.

The clause incorrectly applies the principles of parliamentary attendance that are unsuitable to a local government model. State Members of Parliament are employed full-time, whereas the role of a Councillor is structurally part-time.

Applying this restriction mid-term unfairly alters one of the premises upon which current Councillors were elected, imposes economic hardship on those with primary external employment, and will actively discourage skilled individuals with full-time careers from running for council in the future.”