JUSTICE DENIED: The Supreme Court Judicial Review of Burner & Bawden v City of Salisbury

https://substack.com/@matildabawden/p-179024275

This was never just a dispute between two "rogue" Councillors & the City of Salisbury. It was a public interest action to expose maladministration & demand accountability. Justice McDonald's judgment strayed far from the issues before her, representing a significant failure to protect duly elected community representatives, especially when advocating for minority groups.

WHAT WE ARGUED:

• That Council actions were taken to silence public interest disclosures & suppress legitimate political criticism.

• That behavioural standards were being weaponised to gag elected representatives who were fulfilling their duty to question the administration.

• That the Council repeatedly acted without transparency, improperly excluding the public & media from key decisions.

• That the Council was motivated by apprehended bias when voting to remove the Councillors.

WHAT THE COURT FOCUSED ON:

• A narrow, technical interpretation of the Local Government Act.

• It failed to address the substance of the maladministration claims.

• It effectively endorsed the Council's actions, setting a chilling precedent for any elected official or citizen who dares to speak out.

• A disparaging view of the Councillors (e.g., “defiant”, “conspiracy types” who “refused to apologise”).

WHY THIS JUDGMENT IS DANGEROUS:

If this ruling is left unchallenged, it creates a "playbook" for councils & public bodies to:

1. Crush Dissent: Use "confidentiality" & "behavioural" complaints to punish whistleblowers & critics.

2. Avoid Transparency: Justify secret meetings, shielding their decisions from public & media scrutiny.

3. Exploit Formal Procedures: Use Council motions to publicly defame, humiliate, & denigrate Councillors.

4. Waste Public Funds: Use ratepayer money to fund costly legal actions against the very people elected to represent them.

5. Degrade Elected Members: Treat Councillors as less entitled to fair treatment than employees (e.g., denial of sick leave, workplace bullying protection).

6. Set a Dangerous Precedent: The judgment argues that the "political nature" of councils means they are not bound by the same standards of impartiality as other decision-makers.

7. Undermine Natural Justice: This allows political rivalries to "override" the fundamental right to an unbiased hearing, rendering the principles of apprehended bias & natural justice meaningless in a council context.

By applying the test of “apprehended bias” so loosely, the Court has effectively negated legal principles of bias & given a green light for political bias to infect what should be an impartial process for the removal of elected officials.

This fight is for every South Aussie who believes in open government, public sector integrity, & the right to hold power to account. If allowed to stand, this ruling will certainly spill over into the removal of elected members in State & Federal governments. We are appealing this decision, but we need your help to fund the next stage of the appeal to the Full Supreme Court.

Lodgement of the appeal in time of the 20/11/25 deadline will be $13,150, but total costs will be $70,000.