This case is about a principle that should matter to every Victorian ratepayer: elected councillors must be free to question council figures, challenge council processes, and speak openly about matters of public controversy.

Cr Paul Barker was suspended from Surf Coast Shire Council after publicly questioning council-promoted attendance figures for a council-funded event and criticising the handling of competing petitions about Australia Day. The arbitration decision records that the complaint concerned a Facebook post about Pilk Purriyn attendance figures and comments and an email relating to a late petition at a council meeting. The same decision records that Cr Barker argued his comments were protected political communication.

The issue is simple. If councillors can be punished for robust criticism of official figures, meeting processes, or perceived political bias, then the standard for public debate in local government becomes dangerously narrow. Councillors are not elected to quietly endorse the administrative position. They are elected to test it, question it, and speak plainly when they believe the public is not being given the full picture.

This legal challenge is being pursued to defend that principle. It seeks to test whether misconduct processes can be used to suspend an elected representative for political criticism made in the course of public debate. That question matters well beyond one councillor, one council, or one local dispute.

A strong case requires proper preparation. Legal arguments must be researched, evidence must be organised, counsel must be briefed, and the matter must be presented with the seriousness it deserves. This is not about seeking sympathy. It is about ensuring that an important free-speech argument is properly put before the court rather than being limited by financial pressure.

My solicitor, Paritas Legal, is providing services pro bono.

Donations will support the legal work required to run the case properly, including solicitor and counsel costs, advice, preparation, and court-related expenses. Every contribution helps ensure that the question is tested on its merits. The funding hierarchy is as follows:

Barrister fees

Potential other legal costs

Excess funds:

Donations split 3 ways between

Geelong Community Foundation

Give Where You Live, and

Free Speech Union Australia

The overall target is $100,000. GoFundMe set a lower target initially and i have since removed that lower target.

There will be full disclosure on where these funds have been paid.

This is a chance to stand for a clear principle: local democracy is weakened when elected representatives are pressured to stay silent, and it is strengthened when they are free to question, criticise, and hold power to account.