https://www.facebook.com/110240958004859/

Luke Williamson - Snowy Monaro Regional Councillor, Monaro Highway, Bredbo (2026)

26/10/2026

WHY I AM CONCERNED ABOUT AUDIO SURVEILLANCE IN THE SNOWY MONARO

I want to explain why the issue of audio surveillance by Council concerns me so much, and why many in our community are concerned too.

When residents walk into a Council building to speak with staff or an elected representative, or simply have a private conversation nearby, I don't believe they should have to wonder whether their words are being recorded, stored or reviewed by Council staff, contractors or automated systems. That is one reason why I am deeply concerned about, and opposed to, the installation and use of audio-capable surveillance devices at Snowy Monaro Regional Council facilities and in other public areas.

The second reason relates to the potential unlawfulness of recording private conversations without lawful authority or consent, and the outstanding questions about Council's compliance with the laws involved. Residents often tell me that Council must comply with the law or risk being accused of double standards: enforcing laws and rules against residents while failing to demonstrate the same standard of compliance itself.

Council's own August business paper addressed CCTV systems with audio capability and acknowledged that their operation must be assessed against the relevant legislation and the circumstances of their use.

Audio surveillance is fundamentally different from ordinary CCTV. A camera records what happens in an area, but a microphone can capture what people say: a private conversation between partners, a confidential commercial discussion, a workplace grievance, or someone raising concerns about suspected wrongdoing. That capability raises much more serious questions about privacy, private conversations, workplace surveillance, access to recordings and how recorded material may subsequently be used or disclosed.

The legal questions are significant. They include the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW) and Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW). These are precisely the issues Councillors sought to have independently examined through Council's resolution at the August meeting.

The devices installed and the way they have been used may ultimately prove to be lawful. But that needs to be established independently, not simply assumed.

My concern is not about prejudging anyone or declaring that somebody has broken the law. We see far too much trial by allegation in public life. Questions of legality should be determined on the evidence and, where necessary, by properly qualified and independent authorities.

I listened to community members who have contacted me and I agree we deserve clear answers to a number of questions:

- Where are CCTV and audio-capable surveillance devices installed?
- What video and audio are these devices capable of recording, what has actually been recorded, and has that recording complied with the law?
- What authority existed for the installation and operation of audio-capable devices?
- What did the system cost, who approved the expenditure, and does it represent value for money?
- Who has accessed or reviewed recordings, for what purposes, and under what authority?
- Have recordings been provided to third parties? If so, who authorised their release, for what purpose, and what safeguards exist to manage privacy, conflicts of interest and potential adverse consequences?
- Were staff, Councillors and members of the public adequately informed that they could be subject to audio as well as video surveillance?

On 20 August, Council resolved to obtain independent legal advice by its September meeting. That advice has still not been provided to Councillors. Given both the seriousness of the questions involved and the time that has now passed, I believe Councillors and the community are entitled to understand the reason for the delay. I have therefore written to Mayor Hanna this morning asking him to intervene so that the legal advice sought by Council is provided promptly.

As Council expects residents to comply with the law, residents are entitled to expect Council to demonstrate the same standard of compliance when legitimate questions arise, especially about something as intrusive as recording people's conversations. Even if the audio-capable devices are ultimately deactivated or removed, that will not remove what has already occurred. The questions about their installation, operation, access to recordings, disclosure of material, expenditure and legal compliance will still require answers.

This is not about prejudging the outcome. It is about transparency, accountability and maintaining the community's trust in its Council.

Please keep your comments respectful.

Note, this post reflects my personal views and should not be read as conveying a perspective or policy of the Council.

23/09/2026

Potential Funding Cut

Many people are asking for information about the funding cut that keeps being mentioned during the recent (2 day) council meeting.

Attached is the letter the Council received indicating we may have a funding cut next year. Councillors are considering how to respond.

Please keep comments respectful.

Disclaimer: The statements here are my personal thoughts and views. You should not consider and statement to be a view or position of the Council.

17/09/2026

Lots of people are asking me if I was one of the two councillors who abstained from voting for either Chris Hanna or Tanya Higgins in the mayoral ballot at yesterday’s meeting.

The answer is yes.

I wrote “neither” on the final ballot paper, meaning that mine was an informal vote.

I promised to be community led as your councillor. Over the last month I watched online polls and listened to the very many people who took time to share their views with me. You made it clear that you wanted a change, but not to a Labor Party Mayor. When left with a choice of either the incumbent or a Labor councillor, I voted in accordance with views I had heard and wrote “neither’ on my ballet.

I will say that I was very disappointed after the vote was finalised when Councillor Stewart accused those who had abstained of committing some sin of his own conception. Perhaps, he was disappointed about the outcome. I was also surprised he did not nominate himself. I may well have voted for him.

Let’s hope our, allegedly reluctant, returning Mayor does a great job.

As always I invite your respectful comments.

Please note that the views here are my own and should not be considered to be a view of the Council.

26/08/2026

Thank you for all the calls about Council’s Surveillance Devices and the debate at Monday’s (unexpectedly extended) council meeting session.

While I could not make the extra Monday meeting session, I did write to the other councillors about my concerns after reviewing motion and the CEO’s response (see the council paper) after seeking advice.

I talked to a former police Chief Inspector, a solicitor and a security consultant - all very familiar with surveillance and surveillance legislation. After listening to their sage advice, I became concerned about the risk that council may be breaching both the NSW Surveillance Devices Act 2007 and the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005.

In my email to councillors, I outlined the strict limits these Acts impose; particularly around audio recording, private conversations, and workplace surveillance and emphasised that both Acts apply to council. I also highlighted the advice I had received, that audio recording in public‑accessible areas could unlawfully capture private conversations between residents and staff, that consent is required for any such recording, and that signage does not create an exemption.

I advised the other councillors that:

I am sufficiently concerned that Council might have breached the law that I believe we should (a) get expert legal advice, and (b) request the police to investigate.

The request for the police to investigate is because I think we need to be seen as acting transparently and independently in circumstances where there may have been unlawful surveillance.

An investigation would help establish the relevant facts, determine whether any breaches have occurred, and provide confidence to councillors, staff, and the community that the matter is being addressed appropriately. Until that assessment is completed, I believe Council should take a cautious approach and ensure that any surveillance systems are operated only in a manner that is demonstrably compliant with all applicable legislation.”

I understand the meeting resolved to seek independent legal advice about the situation.

The Monaro Zone has published the council debate on this matter. I found some of the arguments fascinating.

As far as I understand the devices in and around the Cooma office remain in operation. I understand that additional devices have been installed in the internal stairwell leading to the council chamber, and outside the visitors information centre surveilling the footpath and the entry to the park. I understand these may be capable of recording audio and video.

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed here are my own and may not be those of the council.

Please keep your comments respectful.

14/08/2026

THE IMPORTANCE OF SATIRE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

In a recent Sydney Morning Herald article, a NSW councillor was cited as complaining that those who had created satirical songs and content about elected representatives faced no consequences for doing so.

While I have sympathy for some of the other concerns raised in the article, on the subject of satire in public life I could not disagree more. To be very clear, I am talking about satire, not content designed to defame. Serious factual allegations that harm a person's reputation, unless allowed under our defamation statutes (e.g. because they are true) rather than mere ridicule, exaggeration or opinion are a different matter entirely.

Satire has long played an important role in democratic societies. Although it is rarely pleasant for its target, it promotes awareness, encourages scrutiny and engages citizens in the debate on public matters. In Australia, with our cultural appreciation for irony and irreverence, satire is particularly powerful.

The ability of citizens to poke fun at elected representatives is not a threat to democracy. Quite the opposite in fact, it is one of the safeguards that helps prevent public institutions, and those that govern them, from becoming detached from the communities they serve. For those not blessed with self-awareness, or those afflicted by unwavering devotion to party dogma, satire can provide the occasional slap in the face that reminds them who they work for, and what we care about.

Australia's affinity for political satire is deeply embedded in our culture. From Barry Humphries' Dame Edna Everage, who spent decades exposing social and political absurdities through humour, to the sharp observations of John Clarke and the work of the Doug Anthony Allstars, Australians have often used laughter as a way of holding those with power to account. The beauty of satire is that it can reveal contradictions and hypocrisies that formal reporting sometimes struggles to communicate. A well-crafted joke can expose a truth that remains hidden within a thousand page report. While those on the receiving end rarely appreciate the experience, that discomfort is often evidence that satire is doing precisely what it is supposed to do.

Satire is particularly important in local government because council decisions have the most direct impact on people's daily lives. Residents may not spend their evenings reading governance frameworks or council reports, but they care deeply about whether roads are graded, sporting fields are mown, swimming pools remain open, development applications are assessed fairly and that rates are spent wisely. Satire transforms dry administrative subjects into conversations people actually want to have. A clever cartoon, parody ditty or humorous video can communicate the essence of a complex issue in a matter of seconds or minutes. While satire should never replace factual reporting or robust debate, it often encourages citizens to take an interest in matters they might otherwise ignore. It is also, when done well, very funny.

As regional newspaper circulations decline and their commercial pressures intensify, many local publications face difficult decisions about revenue. Council advertising remains an important source of income for some newspapers, although less effective for councils. While I suspect editors and owners of regional newspapers would claim otherwise, we would be naïve to think that they aren’t reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. At the same time, a new generation of media entrepreneurs has recognised that audiences increasingly consume information through social media feeds, podcasts, short-form video and digital publications. Unlike many traditional local newspapers, these emerging outlets often derive their revenue from a mix of donations, sponsorships, programmatic advertising and platform-based revenue sharing, making them less dependent on large institutional advertisers. As a result, they can be more willing to challenge prevailing narratives, scrutinise local decision-makers and experiment with formats that attract engagement.

Satirical content is also particularly effective in the new media environment because it is shareable, accessible and capable of reaching people who are unlikely to pick up a lengthy and carefully worded council report. In many respects, satire has become the gateway drug to civic participation. In short, people come for the joke but stay for the substance.

Our local example is The Monaro Zone, which has demonstrated how satire can be used to build an audience while also supporting more substantive journalism. While I do not agree with everything it publishes, the Monaro Zone’s witty commentary and satirical content attract readers looking for a different perspective on local, state and national issues. Allowing the community to self-publish content makes the platform even more engaging at truly a local level.

As audiences and their engagement grows, so too does the demand for in-depth articles, investigative reporting and long-form interviews with local figures. Chris Chan, proprietor of the Monaro Zone, and others involved in the publication have shown considerable skill in conducting direct interviews that allow local personalities to explain their positions in their own words.

Healthy local government depends on transparency, accountability and active community participation. None of those things are advanced by punishing, discouraging or attempting to suppress satire. Public officials do not have to enjoy being the subject of parody songs, cartoons or jokes, but they should recognise the democratic value those things provide. As Barry Humphries demonstrated through Dame Edna for more than half a century, humour can challenge orthodoxy, expose pretension and encourage self-reflection in ways that earnest commentary often cannot.

For all of the reasons above, making satirists face consequences for satirising elected representatives would be unhelpful, un-democratic and distinctly un-Australian. The appropriate response to satire is not censorship. It is to laugh along, reflect on your own decisions and conduct, make change if warranted or, if sufficiently affronted and confident that you are in the right, maybe respond with even better satire. If Dame Edna taught Australians anything, it is that public figures should never fear being laughed at nearly as much as they should fear becoming incapable of laughing at themselves.

In that spirit, if you disagree with my views in this article, I invite you to compose a witty sea shanty ridiculing them. Given recent discussions in the council chamber, and the related satirical post in the Monaro Zone, about pirates it would seem entirely appropriate. Who knows I might even respond. After all, every comment, argument and rebuttal increases engagement and therefore the prominence of an article in social media. In the modern attention economy, even disagreement and the acts of ‘deep fakes’ can be productive. Opps was that satirical or sarcastic….I don’t know any more.

DISCLAIMER
This page is where I publish my own thoughts and opinions. Nothing here should be read as being a view or position of the Council or other councillors.

I ask that you please keep your comments respectful.

Oh, thanks to my (anonymous) friend who generated the cartoon.

02/08/2026

A few things to update you on:

(1) Bumbalong road intereection safety

After the accident at the Bumbalong Road intersection with the Monaro Highway last week, I have put a motion up to have the Mayor write to the Transport Minister and our local members about the need to to get the intersection fixed, and for the CEO to raise it with Transport for NSW too.

(2) Security and confidentiality of correspondence with Councillors

Following an incident last year and the recent ICAC hearings into the Parramatta Council, I have put a motion up seeking a report into the security and confidentiality of letters and emails sent by you to councillors. There is a bit is a story. See the attached photos.

What do you think? Should physical mail and email to councillors be confidential?

(3) Kangaroo detecting camera

I’d be interested to hear your feedback on the Kangaroo directing cameras and signage installed just north of the Micalago intersection with the highway.

Please note, the content above is my own and should not be considered to convey any view or decision of the council.

As always, please keep your comments respectful.

09/07/2026

Motion supporting a Hospital in Jindy denied.

Earlier today I moved an amendment to a related motion that Council work with NSW Health to identify future hospital site for the growing community in Jindabyne. This would be a great way to start re-engaging on this after it was not included in the SAP.

Astoundingly the the majority of council voted against this. Thank you to Councillors Rose, Elliot, Rooney and Thaler for joining me.

I am very disappointed and dismayed at this result.

Please note, my comments here are my own and should not be read as being those of the council.

Please keep any comments respectful.

08/05/2026

Thank you to everyone who has gotten in touch about the pools and the plight of our unpaid local suppliers and tradies and their families.

With the builder (Dalski) now in administration, our suppliers and tradies may be out of pocket for a long period. This is having a real human impact as families struggle to make ends meet in a time of crazy fuel prices and a falling economy.

Council has the ability to help. While we may not have a legal responsibility to do so, many have argued that we have a moral obligation to help as Council and the community will enjoy the benefit of the (unpaid) labour for decades to come. Then there is the economic harm that could be avoided should these businesses struggle or fail.

Cashflow is the biggest problem for most small businesses. So I have put this motion (see the picture) on the agenda for this month’s council meeting. If other councillors agree, we can help out these local businesses and families by helping to address their cash flow shortfall while waiting for the administrator to pay their bills.

I think it is a modest, prudent and ethical way forward that helps our businesses caught up in this mess.

These words above are my opinion. Nothing here should be taken as the position of the Council.

Please keep comments respectful

05/05/2026

Over the last month or so I have been contacted by numerous community groups and members concerned about a range of matters. I have therefore formally lodged the following questions that should be answered in the paper for the 21st May 2026 council meeting.

APPOINTMENT OF DALSKI Pty Ltd AND THE SWIMMING POOLS
------------------------------------------
Many in the community have asked me how it came to be that Council engaged Dalski Pty Ltd to renovate the pools in Bombala and Cooma, especially in light of information that was circulated to community groups and then published on the Monaro Zone.

In relation to the engagement of Dalski Pty Ltd for works at the Cooma and Bombala pools:

1. What role, if any, did NSW Public Works have in the preparation, assessment, or determination of the tender process?

2. Were any concerns raised regarding contractor suitability, financial capacity, or probity matters including by NSW Publics Works participants?

3. To what extent, if any, did council undertake background checks on the tenderers? Did this include public domain information and internet searches?

4. Did council discover, become aware or was made aware, including by participants from NSW Public Works, of matters investigated by ICAC related to Mr Vlad Stabculescu and Dalski in relation to its Operation Hector?

5. If concerns were raised, what risk assessment was undertaken and what mitigation measures were proposed or planned?

6. Of the mitigations proposed or planned, which were implemented and which were not?

7. What information was provided to the Governing Body regarding

7.a. any risks associated with Dalski Pty Ltd; and

7.b. any advice received from NSW Public Works or other agencies?

8. Under what delegation or authority was the decision made to engage Dalski Pty Ltd?

9. How did the then CEO ensure compliance with section 335(f) in providing councillors with sufficient information?

THE TILES USED IN THE BOMBALA AND COOMA POOLS
-----------------------------------------
There have been rumours circulating that the tiles used in the Bombala pool are the tiles specified in the tender and may in fact be ‘knock off’ tiles purchased on Alibaba or Temu.

In regards to the tender and contract of works from the Bombala and Cooma pools:

1. What did the tender specify in respect to the specific type/brand of tiles that were required to be used?

2. What did the tender specify in respect to the type/brand of any adhesive that were required to be used?

3. What did the tender specify in respect to how adhesive would be applied to the tiles and any methods for validating its use and effectiveness?

4. What did the tender specific in respect to the suppliers or tiles and/or adhesive?

5. What were the reasons for the specifications?

6. Were any variation to those specifications approved? If so, by whom and under what authority?

7. If variations to specifications made:

7.a. Were all tenderers given the opportunity to retender or amend their quoted price? If not, why not?

7.b. What were the reasons for the approving the variations?

7.c. What assessment was undertaken regarding performance, durability, and compliance with standards for any variation to the specifications.

8. What information regarding any variation was provided to the governing body?

9. How did the CEO at the time ensure councillors were properly informed under sections 223 and 232?

NON DISPARAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
------------------------------------------
I have been contacted by several persons from across the shire complianing that they have been asked to sign agreements that they won’t disparage council (if they want to do work). These individuals were working for council contractors not council directly. In my view all residents and ratepayers in our shire should be free to discuss council decisions, actions and performance in any forum, and encouraged to report any wrong doing or improvement opportunities.

In relation to council contracts or contracting practices:

1. Has Council requested, compelled or required any party or entity to enter into any form of agreement not to disparage Council?

2. Has Council potential or actual supplier to request, compel or require their staff, sub-contractors or suppliers to consider or enter into any form of agreement not to disparage Council?

3. In the event the answers to either or both questions 1 or 2 is Yes:

3.a. Why has Council sought to impose such requirements?

3.b. When did Council commence requiring such agreements?

3.c. Did the Council draft or fund the drafting of the relevant agreement or clause wording?

3.d. What does Council consider to be disparagement?

3.e. How does Council monitor compliance with the agreements and what does this cost?

3.f. Has Council taken action, or threatened action, against any entity or person, or encouraged or compelled any action against any entity or person for alleged disparagement?

3.g. Is there a policy of Council or a resolution passed by councillors to require non disparagement agreements on Council project works?

CARAVAN PARKS
---------------------
I asked the CEO (Ms Vu) in February 2026 whether a specific caravan park had the requisite approvals in place to allow residents to occupy sites long-term. This was due to concerns raised regarding two residents and their extended stay. An email response on 9 March 2026, indicated that the caravan park was only approved for short-term stays and that the “non-compliance matter for ‘long term’ residents is a risk”. I assumed that the CEO’s response relates to non-compliance with the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2021 (the Regulation) under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).

In the context outlined above I ask the following questions:

1. Has council identified any instances of non-compliance with the Regulation that are current, or that occurred/existed in the past three years in relation to council operated caravan parks?

2. Has council identified any instances of non-compliance with the Regulation that are current, or that occurred/existed in the past three years in relation to caravan parks other than those operated by Council?

3. In the event the answer to questions 1 or 2 is that non-compliance was identified:

3.a. What were the non-compliance matters identified?

3.b. Which caravan parks did these related to?

3.c. Are the parks now compliant?

4. If any council operated caravan parks was, or are, operating without fully complying with the Regulation

4.a. What compliance or enforcement action has been taken?

4.b. What information was provided to the governing body and when?

4.c. Has the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee considered these matters and when?

4.d. How has the CEO ensured councillors were informed under s.335(f)?

RAIL TRAIL PROJECT AND GRANT
-----------------------------------------
It would be fair to say that the rail trail proposal, especially the very short trail being commencing in Bombala currently approved by Council, is being talked about by many.

In relation to the rail trail project:

Approvals
—————-
1. What approvals, and from what authority, has council obtained to access or undertake work in the Bombala station precinct and rail corridor?

2. When were these approvals provided and in what form were they provided?

3. Has council, or any supplier of services engaged by council, entered any area or undertaken any work without the required approvals having yet been granted?

Rail corridor lease
—————————
4. What length of rail corridor is council intending to lease or has a lease granted over?

5. Has council applied for a lease on the rail corridor? Please provide a copy of the application documents.

5. If council has applied for the lease, when and to what organisation or authority has that application been made?

6. If council has not applied for a lease:

6.a When will the application be made?

6.b What organisation or organisation is council discussing the potential lease with?

7. When is it expected that a lease will be granted?

Expenditure and Grant
————————————
8. What amount of grant funding has council been awarded?

9. What can this funding be used for?

10. Have grant funds been received by council or are they held by the grantor?

11.How much of the grant funding has been used and how much remains?

12. Please provide the details on what the funding has been used for.

13. What amount has council spent, if any, on the rail trail that has not been paid for or claime against with grant funds? Please include the value of staff time, and any expenses.

14. How many kilometres of rail trail can be constructed with the remaining grant funding?

15. Is there a date by which the funds must be used? Please provide a copy of the grant agreement.

Construction
———————
16. When will construction commence?

17. When will construction be completed?

Agricultural impact risk assessment
———————————————————-

18. What risk assessment has council undertaken in respect to potential impact on adjoining farm land and livestock?

19. What agencies or authorities has council consulted in respect to the assessment of risk?

20. What decontamination, biological controls or other mitigations will council be installing and servicing to mitigate risk to farming production and livestock?

21. What is the cost of insurance for the operation of the rail trail? How has this been determined?

22. What events are included in the insurance council will hold? Are there any exclusions? How has this been determined?

23. Should the rail trail, use of the trail or users of the rail trail be found to have contributed to the injury, death or disease of livestock, will these impacts be covered by the insurance?

24. Has council’s audit, risk and improvement committee been consulted or asked to consider the design or operation of the rail trail?

Operating and Maintenance Budget
———————————————————-

25. What is the expected operating and maintenance budget for FY26/27, FY 27/28 and FY 28/29?

26. What activities and materials are included in the operating and maintenance budgets for these years?

27. Is the operating and maintenance budget for the rail trail included in Integrated Planning and Reporting documents that have been on exhibition?

RETURN ON COUNCIL RENTED PROPERTIES
------------------------------------------
In the last week there has been substantial discussion in the community about council’s real estate portfolio and whether council is making an appropriate return on investment on its property that used for non-operational purposes.

In relation to houses or buildings owned by Council I ask the following questions. Please exclude community halls, sporting facilities and show ground facilities.

1. What houses, apartments, units, flats or buildings are currently owned by Council?

2. Which of these houses, apartments, units, flats or buildings are occupied or used for non‑Council operational purposes?

3. For each house, apartment, unit, flat or building used for non‑Council operational purposes, to whom (person, organisation or entity) is the property leased, licensed or otherwise made available?

4. For each house, apartment, unit, flat or building used for non‑Council operational purposes, what rent or fee does Council receive for its occupation or use, and how is that rent or fee determined (for example, market valuation, policy setting, subsidy or concession)?

5. Where Council receives rent or fees that are below market value, what is the reason for this?

6. On what basis (for example, policy decision, resolution of Council, legislative requirement or other approval) has below‑market rent or fee use been permitted?

7. Where a house, apartment, unit, flat or building is used by council employees to personal use, how has council treated any fringe benefits tax liabilities?

Luke Williamson - Snowy Monaro Regional Councillor

26/10/2026

23/09/2026

17/09/2026

26/08/2026

14/08/2026

02/08/2026

09/07/2026

08/05/2026

05/05/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Nearby government services

Listing takedown request

Saved & Alerts

Saved businesses

Following

New for you

Saved to Saved & Alerts.

Enable notifications