On Friday, 31 October 2025, the Public Inquiry into Liverpool City Council, commissioned under Section 438U of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), held its 37th day of public hearings in Sydney. The session commenced at 10:31 AM and featured continued testimony from Councillor Peter Ristevski, focusing on work health and safety obligations, social media usage policies, and responses to public comments on his platforms. Below is a factual summary of the day’s events, followed by an analysis of matters arising that would interest ratepayers, framed around the question: Are ratepayers getting good value for their money?
Summary of Proceedings
Councillor Peter Ristevski’s Testimony
- Work Health and Safety Obligations: Councillor Ristevski, under oath from earlier in the week, was presented with a Memorandum of Advice from Senior Counsel (Mr Hodgkinson) regarding councillors’ obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act, specifically Section 29 duties. The advice highlighted that councillors must take reasonable care to avoid adversely affecting the health and safety of others at council workplaces, including through behaviours like bullying that could exacerbate existing issues. Ristevski stated he had not seen this advice prior to the hearing, despite references in council emails from February 2025 suggesting it was circulated to councillors via email or at governance meetings.
- Social Media Usage and Policy: Ristevski confirmed a change in his social media approach, now vetting and authorising all posts on his “Councillor Peter Ristevski” Facebook and Instagram pages (he does not use Twitter/X) while considering the code of conduct and free speech guidelines. He has informed his support team (referred to as the “Macedonian team”) of these requirements. He maintains a policy of not censoring public comments on his posts, whether supportive or critical, citing a belief in free speech, and noted a lack of training or guidance on rules regarding comment moderation.
- Responses to Public Comments: The inquiry examined specific comments on a 13 September 2025 post by Ristevski about a proposed million-dollar mosque development in Austral, focusing on infrastructure concerns. Two comments were highlighted: one stating, “I heard that place was a pig farm,” to which Ristevski replied, “Now that would be very ironic,” and another saying, “Ban the lot we are [a] Christian country,” to which he responded with prayer hands and a flag emoji. Ristevski denied that his “ironic” comment referenced past offensive remarks about the mayor involving pigs or pork, despite acknowledging the mayor’s known sensitivity to such comments, claiming the mayor “weaponises” this offence. He refused to categorise the second comment as discriminatory, invoking privilege when pressed, leading to an adjournment at 10:53 AM for his counsel to take instructions.
Matters Arising of Interest to Ratepayers: Are Ratepayers Getting Good Value for Money?
Ratepayers of Liverpool City Council are concerned about whether their contributions result in responsible governance, professional conduct, and a safe, respectful environment for all stakeholders. The following matters from Day 37 of the inquiry highlight areas where value for money is in question:
- Governance and Professional Conduct:
- Inappropriate Social Media Responses: Councillor Ristevski’s responses to potentially offensive comments on his Facebook page—such as “Now that would be very ironic” to a pig farm remark and prayer hands to a discriminatory “ban the lot” statement—raise concerns about his adherence to the code of conduct and sensitivity to community diversity. Despite claiming to observe restrictions, these actions suggest a lack of discretion. Ratepayers may question if their money funds a councillor whose online behavior risks inflaming tensions or alienating community members, diverting focus from governance to controversy.
- Refusal to Acknowledge Impact: Ristevski’s denial that his comments relate to known offensive remarks about the mayor, and his invocation of privilege when pressed on discriminatory content, indicate a reluctance to take accountability. If ratepayer-funded representatives avoid responsibility for actions that could harm council reputation or community harmony, the value of their representation diminishes.
- Training and Awareness of Obligations:
- Lack of Awareness of WHS Duties: Ristevski’s unawareness of the Senior Counsel advice on work health and safety obligations under Section 29—despite potential circulation to councillors in February 2025—points to a significant gap in training or communication. If councillors are not informed of their duty to prevent health and safety issues (including psychosocial hazards like bullying), ratepayers may not receive value as potential breaches could lead to staff harm, legal costs, or reduced workplace efficiency, all impacting council resources.
- Insufficient Guidance on Social Media: His policy of not censoring comments and lack of knowledge about rules on moderating content (noting no training covered this) highlight inadequate preparation for managing public platforms responsibly. Ratepayers may question the value of training programs if they fail to address critical areas like social media conduct, risking further disputes or code of conduct complaints that consume time and funds.
- Transparency and Community Trust:
- Handling of Sensitive Issues: Ristevski’s engagement with comments on a culturally sensitive topic (mosque development) without clear condemnation of discriminatory or offensive content undermines trust in his ability to represent a diverse community fairly. If ratepayers perceive councillors as endorsing or tolerating divisive rhetoric, even indirectly, the value of their contributions to a cohesive council erodes, impacting community confidence.
- Communication Failures on Key Policies: The apparent failure to ensure all councillors received or engaged with critical WHS advice suggests a breakdown in internal communication. Ratepayers may wonder if their money supports a council with effective systems to keep elected officials informed of legal and ethical duties, or if systemic gaps risk ongoing non-compliance and associated costs.
Conclusion
The Day 37 proceedings of the Public Inquiry into Liverpool City Council reveal critical challenges in professional conduct, training on obligations, and transparency that affect whether ratepayers are receiving good value for their money. Councillor Ristevski’s social media responses to potentially offensive comments suggest a disregard for cultural sensitivity and code of conduct restrictions, risking community division and council reputation. His lack of awareness of key work health and safety duties and insufficient guidance on moderating online content highlight training and communication deficiencies that could lead to costly breaches. Additionally, handling of sensitive issues and failure to engage with critical policies undermine public trust. Ratepayers deserve assurance that their contributions fund a responsible, well-informed, and transparent council, yet evidence from this hearing indicates areas where value for money remains uncertain. As the inquiry progresses, these issues warrant scrutiny to ensure improvements at Liverpool City Council.
