Ballina Shire Council has plunged into another fiery debate over councillor expenses — the third this year — as Greens councillors tried to overturn a decision allowing limited alcohol at meetings and official functions.

The rescission motion, led by Cr Simon Chate and supported by fellow Greens Crs Erin Karsten  and Kiri Dicker, was met with frustration from independents, who described the repeat focus on drinks as needless point-scoring that risked damaging council’s reputation.

“Open bar tab” accusations hit a nerve

Cr Chate argued that allowing ratepayer-funded drinks sends the wrong message, particularly as council pursues a special rate variation.

 “Prior to last month’s amendment, councillor expenses never included alcohol.

“Now it looks like we’re asking ratepayers for more money so we can buy drinks for ourselves. That doesn’t pass the pub test.”

Cr Dicker weighed in:

“Sometimes we make decisions in this chamber that turn out to be completely out of step with public expectations. I think this is one of those occasions.

“We have a choice – double down and defend a terrible decision, or admit it, rescind the motion and come up with a more respectful policy.”

Cr Karsten attempted to go further, moving for a total ban on alcohol expenditure at council expense, but her amendment was ruled out of order. She foreshadowed a fresh push in the future.

Independents push back

Of the independents, only Cr Phil Meehan rose to speak –  and he did not hold back.

He said he was “personally affronted” by the insinuation councillors wanted an “open bar tab” at public expense.

He argued the policy change simply restored a long-accepted civic practice of sharing a drink after long meetings, and said the perception of community outrage had been whipped up by Greens social media campaigns.

“Since Friday we’ve had maybe 40 emails and some posts online – that adds up to about 0.02 of 1 percent of our population. 

“To call that a groundswell is misleading.  It’s a pity this has generated so much bad publicity over such a minor matter.”

Mayor Sharon Cadwallader agreed, saying misinformation had clouded the debate.

 “This council has never had a problem with alcohol misuse. The sums involved are tiny – about $200 a year.

“It is demeaning to suggest councillors can’t be trusted to act responsibly.”

Cr Meehan summed up the mood of the independents who chose not to engage publicly:

 “It’s a real shame this is where it’s got to. There is no problematic alcohol use, no problematic spending, no problematic expectation of reimbursements.

 “It’s just a shame we’re having such a long-winded debate about something the vast majority of the community doesn’t even know about, isn’t particularly concerned about, and all it’s doing is generating potential bad publicity for a good council.”

Will it be back again?

The motion was comfortably defeated 6–3, with only the Greens in support and Cr Therese Crollick absent.   But the stoush has left clear ill-will inside the chamber.

Independents say they want to move on, while the Greens insist the issue is about principle, not cost. 

Cr Karsten’s attempt to escalate to a total ban was procedurally ruled out, but her comments suggest the fight may not be over.

Whether the debate returns may depend on whether the Greens “read the room” inside the chamber  – or continue to take their lead from the flurry of emails urged on from supporters.