On Wednesday, 19 November 2025, the Public Inquiry into Liverpool City Council, commissioned under Section 438U of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), held its 42nd day of public hearings in Sydney. The session commenced at 10:26 AM and featured recalled testimony from Shayne Mallard, a former councillor and current council employee, as well as brief evidence from Councillor Ethan Monaghan. The focus included Mallard’s employment history, interactions with the mayor regarding a personal construction site visit, discussions around developer contributions, and Monaghan’s testimony on council matters. 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
Shayne Mallard’s Testimony
- Employment History with Liverpool City Council: Shayne Mallard confirmed he was first employed by the council from 2012 to 2014. After a period in Parliament ending in late March 2023, he returned to the council on a temporary contract as a senior adviser around April or May 2023. By August or September 2023, following a competitive process, he was appointed as the permanent Director of City Futures.
- Interaction with Mayor Regarding Construction Site: In August 2023, Mallard, who has a personal interest and background in horticulture, discussed providing advice on plants for the mayor’s new family home under construction. During a lunch break, the mayor invited Mallard to visit the construction site, traveling together in the mayor’s car. At the site, which was at the concrete formwork and scaffolding stage, they briefly met a construction worker from Future Form, introduced by the mayor. Mallard noted the mayor’s comment, “Can you believe the council’s trying to shut this guy down? Employs 40 locals,” before providing advice on plants like bougainvillea and bamboo for the roof and screening.
- Incident During Return Journey: While driving back to the council, the mayor joined a meeting via car phone loudspeaker, organised by Jason Breton (then a director) to discuss developer contributions (also known as Section 7.11 contributions). The meeting addressed the issue of approximately $200 million in contributions locked in council accounts, intended for infrastructure like parks and roads but often difficult to expend due to outdated plans and funding mismatches. A manager of Strategic Planning raised a concern during the meeting about the mayor’s involvement, citing it as operational and a potential code of conduct issue, leading the mayor to immediately hang up. Mallard noted that the process was later dismantled, and a formal process was adopted by the council.
- Developer Contributions Issue: Mallard elaborated on the broader challenge of developer contributions, explaining that funds are tied to specific zones and purposes under legislated plans, often becoming outdated as community needs evolve. He mentioned a Department of Planning review and an internal Liverpool City Council taskforce (his term for a working group) established to address updating these plans, a significant political issue for the mayor and councillors due to community expectations for infrastructure delivery.
Councillor Ethan Monaghan’s Testimony
- Introduction and Context: Councillor Ethan Monaghan’s appearance was announced at the start of the session by his counsel, Mr A Rizk. While the transcript provided does not detail the full extent of his testimony due to its focus on Mallard’s evidence, it indicates that Monaghan was present to provide evidence on specific council matters as part of the ongoing inquiry into governance and conduct at Liverpool City Council.
- Evidence Provided: Based on the context of the inquiry and the appearances noted, Monaghan’s testimony likely addressed issues relevant to his role as a councillor, potentially including interactions with other council members, adherence to codes of conduct, or specific decisions impacting council operations. His evidence would contribute to the broader examination of transparency and accountability within the council, though specific details of his statements were not captured in the provided excerpt of the transcript.
Matters Arising of Interest to Ratepayers: Are Ratepayers Getting Good Value for Their Money?
Ratepayers of Liverpool City Council are concerned about whether their contributions result in ethical governance, appropriate use of council time and resources, and effective management of community funds. The following matters from Day 42 of the inquiry highlight areas where value for money is in question:
- Governance and Ethical Conduct:
- Personal Interactions During Work Hours: Shayne Mallard’s visit to the mayor’s private construction site during a lunch break, using the mayor’s car, raises concerns about the boundaries between personal and professional interactions. While the visit was brief and related to horticultural advice, the mayor’s comment about the council “trying to shut this guy down” in reference to a contractor suggests potential bias or inappropriate discussion of council matters in a personal context. Ratepayers may question if their money, which funds council employees’ time, is being used appropriately when personal excursions blur professional lines.
- Mayor’s Involvement in Operational Matters: The mayor’s participation in a meeting on developer contributions, perceived by a staff member as operational and a potential code of conduct breach, indicates a risk of overstepping governance boundaries. Although the mayor promptly ended his involvement upon objection, ratepayers may worry if such incidents reflect a pattern of inappropriate engagement in operational issues, potentially diverting focus from strategic priorities and risking further ethical concerns that could cost resources to resolve.
- Management of Community Funds:
- Locked Developer Contributions: The discussion of approximately $200 million in developer contributions, intended for infrastructure like parks and roads but locked due to outdated plans and funding mismatches, highlights a significant barrier to delivering community benefits. Ratepayers may question the value for money if their council struggles to unlock these funds for promised projects, leaving community expectations unmet and infrastructure delayed despite substantial contributions being held.
- Efforts to Address Contributions Issue: While Mallard mentioned a Department of Planning review and an internal taskforce to update contributions plans, the ongoing nature of this problem—described as not unique to Liverpool—suggests systemic inefficiencies. Ratepayers may doubt the value of their contributions if council and governmental processes fail to expedite solutions, risking prolonged delays in community infrastructure and potentially increasing costs over time.
- Transparency and Community Trust:
- Perception of Bias or Influence: The mayor’s comment at the construction site about a contractor employing locals and facing council opposition could be perceived as an attempt to influence or garner sympathy outside formal channels. If ratepayers interpret such remarks as bias or undue influence over council decisions, trust in impartial governance erodes, diminishing the perceived value of their financial support to the council.
- Handling of Code of Conduct Concerns and Councillor Accountability: The immediate termination of the mayor’s involvement in the contributions meeting upon staff objection is a positive step, but the initial inclusion raises questions about adherence to governance protocols. Additionally, while specific details of Councillor Monaghan’s testimony are limited in the transcript, his involvement in the inquiry suggests scrutiny of councillor conduct or decision-making. Ratepayers may wonder if their money supports a council where boundaries are consistently respected by all members, or if recurring lapses in protocol risk transparency and accountability, necessitating costly inquiries or reviews.
Conclusion
The Day 42 proceedings of the Public Inquiry into Liverpool City Council reveal critical challenges in ethical conduct, management of community funds, and transparency that affect whether ratepayers are receiving good value for their money. Shayne Mallard’s personal interaction with the mayor during work hours and the mayor’s comment on a contractor suggest blurred professional boundaries, while the mayor’s brief involvement in an operational meeting raises code of conduct concerns. The issue of $200 million in locked developer contributions highlights systemic barriers to delivering infrastructure, despite reviews and taskforces. Councillor Ethan Monaghan’s testimony, though not fully detailed here, contributes to the broader scrutiny of council accountability. Ratepayers deserve assurance that their contributions fund an ethical, efficient, 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.
