On Tuesday, 15 July 2025, the public inquiry into Liverpool City Council continued with its second day of hearings in Sydney, conducted under Section 438U of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).
Employment Practices in Focus
The main focus of Day 2 was the testimony of Mr Adam Dansie, Director of Workforce and Legal at Local Government NSW (LGNSW), the peak industry association for local government in New South Wales. Mr Dansie provided high-level insights into employment and industrial relations within the local government sector, without delving into specifics about Liverpool City Council. His evidence is crucial for understanding how council staff, including senior roles, are employed and managed—an area of concern given the high turnover of general managers at our council. Emphasis was given to what qualifications were required to fulfil roles within Local Government.
Mr Dansie outlined the framework for council employee conditions, splitting his evidence into two periods: before and after 1 September 2024, when significant legislative changes took effect. Before this date, councils could designate certain positions as “senior staff,” which were subject to statutory contracts approved by the Office of Local Government rather than awards or enterprise agreements. These roles, often direct reports to the general manager, lacked access to unfair dismissal protections under the state tribunal system. Mr Dansie noted, “Once a position is designated a senior staff position, they cease to be covered by the arbitral functions of the Industrial Relations Commission and, therefore, are not covered by awards or enterprise agreements.”
Post-1 September 2024, this designation was abolished following recommendations from Operation Dasher (circa 2020-2021), an inquiry that identified corruption risks in no-fault termination provisions. Now, all new executive-level employees, including directors, must be employed under awards like the Local Government State Award, granting them unfair dismissal protections. Existing senior staff could transition to award-based employment or remain on their contracts until expiry. This shift also altered decision-making, with the general manager now determining organisational structure in consultation with the council, rather than the governing body directly deciding senior staff positions.
Salary Structures and Market Rates
A significant portion of Mr Dansie’s testimony covered how salaries are determined for council staff. Most employees are covered by the Local Government State Award, which sets minimum rates across skill-based bands (Operational, Administrative/Technical Trades, Professional/Specialist, and Executive). Each council complements this with a unique salary system, allowing progression based on skill acquisition or performance. Mr Dansie explained, “The award sets the industry minimum rates, but then the award also requires in clause 7 that each council have a salary system… with a number of grades.”
For roles like directors, salaries can vary based on responsibilities, authority, and market demands. Councils may pay above-award “market rates” to attract or retain talent, especially for scarce skills. Resources like LGNSW’s remuneration reports help councils benchmark these rates. However, for ratepayers, the idea of additional payments raises questions about whether our funds are being used efficiently, especially when financial sustainability is already a concern as highlighted on Day 1.
The inquiry delved into the employment of general managers, a sore point for Liverpool given the turnover of six permanent and eleven total (including acting) general managers since 2010. Unlike other staff, general managers are not covered by awards but by a mandatory statutory contract with the council, signed by the mayor on the council’s behalf. Mr Dansie detailed termination provisions, noting that the council (not just the mayor) must pass a resolution to end a contract. Termination can be with cause (e.g., poor performance or misconduct) or without cause, the latter requiring a payment of 38 weeks’ notice or the contract balance, whichever is less. He stated, “Under the current version of the contract… a council can terminate the contract without providing a reason by the giving of 38 weeks’ notice or the balance of the contract, whichever is the lesser.”
Changes in 2022 to the standard contract, spurred by corruption concerns, introduced safeguards like requiring reasons for termination if requested, offering mediation (though it requires mutual agreement), and mandating performance reviews before termination for poor performance. Performance-based pay increases are now limited to 12 months unless extended by the council, ensuring ongoing accountability. For residents, these termination payments are concerning—past payouts to general managers like John Ajaka, as mentioned on Day 1, have cost significant sums, directly impacting our rates.
Mr Dansie also discussed how councils hire staff. Permanent roles require advertising and merit-based selection under Sections 348 and 349 of the Local Government Act, ensuring fairness. However, temporary appointments (up to 12 months, or 24 for maternity leave) can bypass this process for urgent needs, as per Section 351. After 12 months, temporary contracts cannot be renewed; the role must be advertised for permanent appointment or the employment ends. Lateral transfers within the council also avoid re-advertising under Section 350. These exceptions, while practical, could raise concerns about transparency in hiring, especially if temporary roles are used to sidestep merit processes.
As Liverpool ratepayers managing a council budget of over $530 million annually, the employment practices discussed on Day 2 hit close to home. The high turnover of general managers and associated termination costs, as seen with past cases, mean our money is spent on settlements rather than community services. The shift to award-based employment for directors may offer more protection to staff, but it also raises questions about whether salary systems and market rates are inflating costs unnecessarily. Ms McDonald’s line of questioning suggests the inquiry is probing whether these frameworks contribute to inefficiencies or mismanagement at Liverpool City Council.
Moreover, the balance of power between the general manager and the governing body (councillors and mayor) in determining staffing and resources is critical. With historical tensions among our councillors, as highlighted on Day 1, there’s a risk that personal or political agendas could influence operational decisions, potentially to the detriment of our suburbs.
The inquiry will continue with further witnesses, likely including financial experts and council staff, to explore other terms of reference such as financial management and governance issues. Day 2’s focus on employment sets the stage for examining specific cases of staff turnover and termination costs at Liverpool, which could reveal more about wasteful spending.
I encourage all residents to follow the live stream or check transcripts on the inquiry’s webpage. This process is our chance to ensure accountability and push for a council that prioritises our needs over internal disputes or poor management. We will keep reporting on each day’s developments, and welcome your thoughts or experiences with council operations. You can watch the hearings streamed live from our Facebook page
Day 2 Transcript English
Arabic Coming Soon
Vietnamese Coming Soon
