Unreasonable conduct of Canterbury City Council

The investigation by the NSW Ombudsman into the Conduct of Canterbury City Council has concluded and the findings in the Final report state Canterbury City Council FAILED.

Errs, contradictions, improper conduct just to name a few at the senior management level.

The investigation previously released here that needed to be removed can be found at the Street Corner under the heading "NSW Ombudsman gives notice to Mayor Robert Furolo" at http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/showPost.cfm?bid=11800 The followup to that can be found under the heading "NSW Ombudsman finds Canterbury City Council failed" at http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/showPost.cfm?bid=13435

The Mallone family are not surprised by the findings or recommendations by the Ombudsman. They have been telling the Council over and over again that the issues raised in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009 were handled with negligence.

The NSW Ombudsman describes the many Council "failures" as "unreasonable conduct". Ratepayers would use words such as incompetence, negligence, maladministration, etc....

These issues related to serious safety issues that placed people at an unacceptable risk of injury and death. Geotechnical engineers clearly advised the risk of injury and death was unacceptable in 2003, yet Council simply sent the problem back to Mrs Mallone's neighbours stating the land owner is responsible. Yes, land owners are responsible to maintain their property but when Council actions and inactions are the direct result for a collapsing cliff then ultimately, Council was required to do more than pass the buck back to innocent land owners who unbelievably were then prevented from maintaining their land by that same Council.

This Council negligence reoccured in 2005 & 2006 causing Mrs Mallone to be dragged into the Supreme Courts by her neighbours to defend herself. For the next three years Council denied it's actions and inactions were negligent nor the cause for her massive legal debt, now reaching near $250,000.

Near five years of hell for her and her family and the NSW Ombudsman investigation found no evidence of any Council investigation occurring that Council claimed on at least three occasions, had occurred.

The first of 18 recommendations is that Canterbury City Council issue an apology to the Mallone family.

A Canterbury City Council disgrace.

For some thirty years Canterbury City Council disposed of it's stormwater through the properties of Mrs Mallone and her neighbours properties; they refused them permission to remove damaging trees; they went against resident concerns raised and approved a unit building to be erected just over one metre from the base of this cliff; they ...... Yet Council believed it was not there problem to address, nor a need for them to properly investigate the issues raised.

It was a whole two years before anyone bothered to inform Mrs Mallone of the 2003 geotechnical but it was Mrs Mallone aged 79 being dragged into the Supreme Court defending herself in 2006.

Questions need to be asked why this Council required the NSW Ombudsman to advise them of their numerous failures.

On 27 Feb 2010 the Daily Telegraph story on Page 11 states Mrs Mallone is going to get the apology she deserves. We all doubt Mrs Mallone or her family will ever get the apology they deserve. Nothing will return five years of addressing the issues to a Council who ultimately just refused to listen; to watching their mother in the Supreme Court knowing her legal debt was already near $150,000, the cliff works were estimated in the hundreds of thousands and if she lost this fight she would lose her home of 40 plus years; to watching their mother break down in tears in the Council General Manager's office as she told him what she had been through; to read in the NSW Ombudsman report that the General Manager explained to the NSW Ombudsman officer that he had never met Mrs Mallone and then advise he erred in advising that he had not met Mrs Mallone when provided with the summary of evidence.

No apology will restore the five years of their lives destroyed by Canterbury City Council maladministration.


Sack the lot of them. They are inexperienced and a disgrace.

We agree they should be sacked but the Minister for Local Government believed these issues were between Mrs Mallone and the Council. See the PDF document of this Ministers response at http://bit.ly/DLG_Response2

Therefore, the General Manager, the Mayor and Councillors need to stand down in disgrace.

The NSW Ombudsman report states:

This office believes that the General Manager (Mr Jim Montague) has a responsibility to set the standards for the Council and to show leadership in good conduct and administrative practice. Similarly senior management should also set the standard for the staff they supervise.

It was apparent from this investigation that there is a lack of leadership from the senior management of the Council around good conduct....

So why weren't the Mayor and all the Councillors doing something about this? Utter failures and a disgrace.

Errs and contradictions whilst under investigation is something this Council should not be proud of. Negligence, incompetence or deception.

This Council must be one of the most incompetent and dishonest of all Councils in NSW if not Australia.


I am currently going through a nightmare with a DA Application with Canterbury council which has been going for a long time. It has cost me over $15,000 so far in expenses just waiting for their responses and trying to resolve issues with them which always ends up negative. Canterbury Council are legalized Criminals and I am amazed at the level of power they have. This last attempt to resolve this issue seems to be going sour as well and I cannot let them get away with this. If they fail to work with me I will attempt to gain support from rate payers and campaign towards having Canterbury Council sacked. They are nothing but scum and need to be brought down.

Mr D

The Canterbury Bankstown Express community paper for the third time has exposed the disgraceful Council and its disgraceful apology.


Yet this Council remains adamant that what the public would describe as corrupt conduct conducted in this issue, requires no apology or need to be addressed.

ICAC Act states:

8 General nature of corrupt conduct

(1) Corrupt conduct is:
(a) any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority, or
(b) any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of his or her official functions, or
(c) any conduct of a public official or former public official that constitutes or involves a breach of public trust, or
(d) any conduct of a public official or former public official that involves the misuse of information or material that he or she has acquired in the course of his or her official functions, whether or not for his or her benefit or for the benefit of any other person.

Questions need to be raised why the NSW Ombudsman describes the Council failures as unreasonable conduct and not corrupt conduct.

When the issues and conduct of Canterbury City Council did in fact:

1. adversely affect the honest and impartial exercise of public official functions and the Council itself.
2. involve the dishonest and partial exercise of the officials functions.
3. involved a breach of public trust.
4. involved the misuse of information.

The ICAC website site defines corrupt conduct as:

What is corrupt conduct?
Corrupt conduct, as defined in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, is deliberate or intentional wrongdoing, not negligence or a mistake. It has to involve or affect a NSW public official or public sector organisation.

While it can take many forms, corrupt conduct occurs when:

* a public official improperly uses, or tries to improperly use, the knowledge, power or resources of their position for personal gain or the advantage of others
* a public official acts dishonestly or unfairly, or breaches public trust
* a member of the public influences, or tries to influence, a public official to use his or her position in a way that is dishonest, biased or breaches public trust.

The NSW community expects public officials to perform their duties with honesty and in the best interests of the public. Corrupt conduct by a public official involves a breach of public trust that can lead to inequality, wasted resources or public money and reputational damage.

Mr Mallone provided the NSW Ombudsman with all of the evidence, therefore when the NSW Ombudsman only addresses some of the issues in the NSW Ombudsman Final Report then the NSW Ombudsman must explain to the public how it determined that this conduct was unreasonable and not corrupt conduct.

The public let alone Mrs Mallone who Mr Mallone addressed the issues on behalf of, have a right to know.

Questions also need to be asked why the NSW Ombudsman recommended that the apology is directed to Mr Mallone and his family and not directly to the woman who this Council not only destroyed, and not only blatantly lied about when it stated "it was her own failure that led to the Supreme Court action taken against her" but then had the hide to leave her with a near $250,000 debt, refusing to answer the questions she had every right to know.

Taken from the Canterbury City Council Code of Conduct Policy.

NOTE: You act "honestly" if you act in good faith, with no ulterior or improper purpose. A breach of the
obligation to act honestly involves a consciousness that what is being done is not in the interests of Council, or
the community, or both, and deliberate conduct in disregard of that knowledge. Honesty is more than the
absence of dishonesty. Anything that is not a fact, or not in accordance with the facts, is dishonest.

Therefore according to Council's own Code of Conduct policy:

1. The General Manager's statements to MP Linda Burney of "There is no doubt that there has been considerable unavoidable expense associated with this matter. I am advised the strata owners of 78 Undercliffe, have been endeavouring for years to reach sort of financial agreement with Mrs Mallone to stabilise the cliff face. The failure to reach an agreement led to the commencement of proceedings in the Supreme Court" were DISHONEST. Especially when you consider the Strata Owners of No 78 had addressed the issues to Canterbury City Council for two whole years before notifying and placing their unreasonable demands on Mrs Mallone.

Again, the NSW Ombudsman report failed to address or explain the correspondence full of dishonest statements from the GM to the MP but based on Council's own Code of Conduct, it is clearly classified as dishonesty.

2. The Environmental Compliance Manager's statement to the NSW Ombudsman in 2007 of "he believed the retaining wall at No## Osroy Avenue was only minor and that a building certificate was issued in 2002 and that there was a drainage easement and was fairly confident that the easement took all stormwater flows." were ALL dishonest statements. Especially when you consider all of these were incorrect.

Again, the NSW Ombudsman describes these as contradictory advice from Council, even though it was fully aware none were true. Furthermore the NSW Ombudsman states "It seems to me that Mr Jauncey's (Environmental Complaince Manager) failure to keep records of his interactions with the Mallone family has allowed Mr Mallone to misrepresent the contents of discussions."

Who do you believe misrepresented the contents of discussions, the people that blatantly refused to follow their own Code of Conduct with these false statements (just two of many) or Mr Mallone who represented the contents of the discussions as they were verbally stated?

More news coverage of the disgraceful apology from Canterbury City Council


and a story on one of the many Councillors who FAILED Mrs Mallone


The NSW Ombudsman report stated: "It was apparent from this investigation that there is a lack of leadership from the senior management of the Council around good conduct."

Yet we still have Councillors, the Mayor and the General Manager of this Council still refusing to acknowledge all of their failures nor give Mrs Mallone the apology she deserves.

A disgrace.

Letter to the Editor Valley Times in responce to the stories on both pages 4 and 5 April 1 2010.
The Editor

This sad second hand apology is just another slap in the face for Magda from her elected representatives on Canterbury City Council. The NSW State Ombudsman has recommended the Council make an apology. It is unfortunate your paper has allowed a councillor to present a contradiction on the facing page to a state significant story. Clearly Canterbury City Councillors as representatives of ratepayers have never lifted a finger to assist Magda Mallone she is certainly one of their constituents, and more importantly these same councillors are absolutely responsible for the governance of Canterbury City Council. The ombudsman has effectively identified them for abrogating their responsibilities on that score also. Canterbury is another one of so many local governments which refuse to act in the best interest of ratepayers. The State Ombudsman's findings should result in our State representatives getting involved because councillors on this council are certainly members of the two parties not much preferred; the Mayor is a Labor man. This sort of maladministration is not a one off, consider Hornsby, Gosford, Cessnock, Wollongong, the list is quite long. It is not that councillors do not understand they are simply refusing to do the job they all stepped up and asked for.
Edward James 0243419140
POB 3024
Umina 2257
The NSW Office of Premier and Cabinet are continuing to accomadate sins against their constituents committed by party members. We know this to be true.

Similiar to the past Canterbury Bankstown Express stories at http://bit.ly/Express_Battle, http://bit.ly/Express_Feb_23 and http://bit.ly/Express_disgrace

the Cooks River Valley Times http://bit.ly/TVT_April1_Pg5

and now the Canterbury Bankstown Torch join in on exposing the incompetent, negligent and unreasonable conduct of Canterbury City Council http://bit.ly/Torch_Pg3

Canterbury Council negligence spreads to advertisement in the Peninsula News http://bit.ly/PenNews20100412 (click the graphic and move to page 8)

Or view the PDF version at Google Docs http://bit.ly/PDFPenNews20100412

Canterbury Council negligence spreads to advertisement in the Peninsula News http://bit.ly/PenNews20100412 (click the graphic and move to page 8)

Or view the PDF version at Google Docs http://bit.ly/PDFPenNews20100412

Liberal Councillors Ken Nam and Michael Hawatt standout from the crowd.



FILE NO: O-8-1 PT2

Min. No. 105 RESOLVED

(Councillors Nam/Hawatt)
THAT a detailed report be provided to Council in relation to this matter.

Questions must be asked why Mrs Mallone's East Ward Councillors Carlo Favorito (IND), Bill Kritharas (ALP) and Linda Eisler (GRE) FAILED to perform this action.

A disgraced ALP dominated Council.

What they did was well overdue but we applaud Councillors Ken Nam and Michael Hawatt who had the guts, decency and honesty that no Independant, Labor or Green Councillor obviously had within them.

ICAC finds councils at high risk: http://smh.com.au/nsw-uuur.html

Therefore I would consider a Council told by the NSW Ombudsman that it "lacks leadership" would be an extreme risk.

The Council apology is just a cut and paste of the NSW Ombudsman recommendation.

Council says in accordance with the NSW Ombudsman Final Report:


and then


What a disgrace.

Is it not time that the Deputy Ombudsman Chris Wheeler stop simply slamming Councils and actually do something that will stop these incompetent public servants from office. And naturally all those that have sat there simply accepting this as normal practice.


and a Mayor who denies it http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/mayor-denies-cover-up-an...

Premier Kenneally, what is the Minister of Local Goverment Barbara Perry doing to address these failures of Council that she has been ignoring for way to long.

Extract from NSW Ombudsman report (Canterbury Council):
On 17 November 2009, a draft report was issued to the Minister for Local Government. She was advised it was my intention to publish my final report and she was entitled to request a consultation in accordance with section 25 of the Ombudsman Act before the report was published. The Minister advised me on 25 January 2010 that she did not require a consultation. She also advised me that the Division of Local Government will include Canterbury City Council in the Promoting Better Practice program in the next 12 months so that a further review can be conducted.'

In my view, Canterbury Council ratepayers don't need an incompetent Council that lacks leadership to simply PROMOTE Better Practice - they need a Council that has leadership and that CONDUCTS Better Practices.

Ombudsman report slamming Manly Council http://specials-cumberland.whereilive.com.au/media/ombudsmans-report.pdf

Ombudsman report slamming Canterbury Council http://bit.ly/cHxhdO

Mayor sets great example to the youth.

Mayor Robert Furolo was not only incapable of handling a Canterbury Council GM in the issues above but it seems he is now incapable of handling an Italian Lamborghini http://bit.ly/FuroloSMHFailure.

As failures and accidents never occur without a reason then one wonders if there was any recklessness involved in any of the above!

We should also add this Mayor is also an elected Member of Parliament for the seat of Lakemba.

Premier Keneally must be so proud. http://bit.ly/expFuroloRuns

Looks like the incompetence, negligence and the garbage responses from those responsible never ends.


When will the Councillors of this Council concede they are failures?

When will the Member for Canterbury Linda Burney concede that she ignored her constituents?

When will the Minister of Local Government Barbara Perry concede that she should not have ignored the NSW Ombudsman investigation and report into the FAILURES and UNREASONABLE conduct of Canterbury Council?

Canterbury Council should be sacked, the whole lot. From the cleaners to the Mayor. They are difficult, most stubborn and only care about there own interests, not the community. Women in power, use it. Do your job and make changes.


Greens Councillor Linda Eisler - Oh yeh as if. She recently condoned this Council negligence by stating Council can't get everything 100% right nor can it satisfy every residents need or want!! Obviously she never bothered to read the NSW Ombudsman report that slammed the Council (including herself).

Canterbury MP Linda Burney - Oh yeh as if. She did nothing, even when made fully aware that the Council GM had provided her with numerous dishonest responses to her concerns.

Minister for Local Govt Barbara Perry - Oh yeh as if. She wasn't even interested in the NSW Ombudsman report that slammed this Council.

Premier Kristina Keneally - Oh yeh, as if she is going to address her failing Ministers and MPs (Robert Furolo and Linda Burney).

The men in Council were inept and incompetent. Exposing that, resulted in them doing what ever was required to prevent it from being exposed, and at whatever cost, whether that be the ratepayers, taxpayers or Mrs Mallone. And even during the NSW Ombudsman investigation, they continued their dishonesty until that is, the Ombudsman advised them of the facts.

The women above these wimpy inept men...well, their inaction says it all. Unless, their inaction stemmed from the fact that the Mayor of Canterbury is the LABOR MP Robert Furolo, who ignored and then condoned the unreasonable conduct of the Council including the General Manager.

Women are not the answer. It is people with honesty and integrity something not found in ANY of the above people.

Your opinion/support needed.

Mrs Mallone received this from Council actioning the NSW Ombudsman recommendations. http://bit.ly/CCCAdmitsMaladministration

For at least 7 years this Council erred, gave wrong advice, was dishonest, refused to provide her information, was inconsistent and was unreasonable (verified by the NSW Ombudsman). Therefore these simple recent responses that trivialised serious issues that have major impacts on Mrs Mallone and others was seen to be unreasonable.

So on consultation with her representatives she requested to be provided with the consultants report that Council made its determinations on and naturally the Council instructions given to the consultants.

This is the Council response to that request http://bit.ly/CCC_Unreasonable

What do you think? Because not only does it only address one issue, the drainage, but:
1. only some information in relation to that will be given, and
2. only if she sign a confidentiality agreement they draw up.

Is this what you would expect from your local Council ?

Also keep in mind:
1. That these issues and specifically this drainage issue was addressed over and over again to Council from at least mid 2003 but Council did nothing other than state a Development was required.
2. What 83 year old Mrs Mallone, has been through since being dragged into this mess in mid 2005 when Council just continued to do nothing.
3. Mrs Mallone has incurred a debt now well above $250,000 and solely because of Councils unreasonable conduct and it's negligent actions and inactions over the last couple of decades. ie refusing to permit her to remove damaging trees.
4. All the issues in this Council response have and will continue to have a major impact on her, her property and the safety of people.
5. During the recent rains and inadequate stormwater system approved by Council flooded her property and the cliff area that was omitted from the major works in 2008 (not minor as the GM dishonestly trivialises).

So, not only do they trivialise all the issues. Not only do they solely address the drainage issue. But they will only provide some of the information if she agrees to never disclose it.

What do you think?

NSW Labor rewards Canterbury MP Linda Burney with the title of Deputy Opposition Leader.

This is the same MP who was made fully aware of all the issues in this gripe as they were occuring and did NOTHING.

The same MP who sat back and watched an 80 year old pensioner be dragged into the Supreme Court incurring a legal debt of $190,000 and then have Supreme Court decision basically dismiss the action against her.

The same MP who not once gave in the 5 years of this did she respond to the woman or her reps.

The same MP who although made fully aware of the dishonest responses from the Council and its General Manager, the MP did NOTHING at all to help the 80yo woman even when Council began threatening and bullying her to perform works.

The same MP who did NOTHING at all to aid this 83yo woman achieve a formal NSW Ombudsman investigation http://bit.ly/cHxhdO and a forced apology from a Council General Manager who remains unable to accept he was a FAILURE.

Congratulations NSW Labor for elevating MP Linda Burney and showing the people of NSW you learnt nothing whatsoever from these elections.

Post new comment

Update the gripes status by selecting from the list. The 'gripe' status is for gripes (rants) which can't be fixed
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Please type the two words below to prove you are human.