THOSE who supported the original decision to approve an internal loan had little to say when it came time to discuss a rescission motion.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Councillors met at an extraordinary meeting at 8am on June 24, 2025 to deal with the rescission motion lodged by councillors Warren Aubin, Natalie Cranston and Sophie Wright.
They sought to rescind the decision the council made on June 18 to approve an internal loan from the sewer fund to the general fund as detailed in a report from council staff.
During discussion, councillors Cranston and Wright acknowledged that it was unlikely the rescission motion would be successful.
"My position is that I will support the rescission motion and if the loan is eventually approved, which I expect it will be, I will advocate for strict terms to protect this council, our ratepayers and our financial credibility," Cr Wright said.
However, she and councillors Aubin and Cranston were adamant that the rescission motion - which had been labelled as "procedural vandalism" by acting mayor Ben Fry - was necessary.
They wanted to use the tool to provide clarity about the intent of the loan, its size, and how it would be repaid.
"We've had constructive conversations with senior finance staff and the executive," Cr Cranston said.
"We now understand the intent under [June 18 agenda item] 8.2.10 was much narrower than the Minister's letter implied: a short-term cash-flow buffer, triggered only if the Financial Assistance Grant isn't received by June 30.
"That's helpful clarity, but governance isn't about trusting the vibe. It's about having the facts clearly stated, adopted and understood."
The rescission motion ultimately failed, with only the three councillors who submitted it voting in support of it.
Robert Taylor, Ben Fry, Tony Gullifer, Nick Packham, Jac Underwood and Elaine West voted to uphold the original decision.
Of those who opposed the rescission motion, Cr Gullifer was the only one to provide insight on his position during discussion.
He criticised the way information was communicated prior to the decision being made on June 18, saying, "I felt very rushed and it was messy and it was not a good space for me to be in".
He said that new information had since been presented and that he agreed with comments made by councillors Cranston and Wright.
However, he said it "hasn't done enough for me to change my position on this matter" and stood by his vote on June 18 to approve the internal loan.
Cr Gullifer said he had made his decision based on the report from council staff, not the letter to the Local Government Minister, which contained different information.
Neil Southorn, who was acting general manager when the letter was sent, has explained that the letter was "designed to provide maximum flexibility to council", while the report reflected "the more likely outcome".
Councillors Cranston and Wright have advised they intend to bring a notice of motion to a council meeting in July to formally clarify the wording around the internal loan.
Cr Gullifer said the concerns the community has about governance will be addressed in that motion.
"We need to bring the community together with us. We need to get the finances right, from cost-cutting to grant application, to revenue driving and council efficiencies, and we need to identify between needs and wants in the community," he said.
