Save articles for later
Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.
Key points
- Yarra Ranges Shire council closed its public gallery for three months this year after repeated disruptions.
- Many councils have this year had meetings and events disrupted by groups with fringe and conspiracy beliefs.
- Darren Dickson, a reguar guest speaker on common law with a fringe group took Yarra Ranges Council to the Supreme Court over public consultation on a plan for Monbulk and its closed public gallery.
- Council staff gave evidence in a one-day trial on Thursday describing feeling ‘unsafe’ at a council meeting.
- A decision in the trial is yet to be made.
A council staffer has told the Supreme Court of being encircled and intimidated at a council meeting by people shouting conspiracy theories during a series disruptions that led Yarra Ranges Shire council to temporarily close the public gallery at council meetings earlier this year.
The testimony came as part of a one-day case brought by self-represented plaintiff Darren Dickson against the council for what he claims is a lack of consultation over a planning document and the council’s decision to close the public gallery between April and July.
A Yarra Ranges council meeting in Lilydale in February.Credit: Eddie Jim
Dozens of councils, including Yarra Ranges, have moved to increase security at council meetings in recent months after adherents of fringe conspiracy groups including My Place Australia have disrupted meetings with concerns about vaccinations, 5G towers and 15 or 20-minute city “agendas” they believe are ploys to track citizens.
Nathan Islip, manager of design and place at the council in Melbourne’s outer east, described to the Supreme Court on Thursday a “chaotic scene” at a council meeting in January after the session was dramatically cut short.
Islip described how members of the public gallery yelled insults, called him names and claimed he was part of a conspiracy to lock up residents in Monbulk.
“They were questioning my professional integrity in terms of what my motivations were. It was somewhat overwhelming at the time and I felt quite unsafe,” he told the court.
“There was talk amongst this of what I would consider conspiracy theories regarding 20-minute neighbourhoods, accusing me of trying to lock people up and … there were repeated conversations around the installation of cameras around intersections and [questions like] ‘what are those cameras being used for?’, ‘who is watching those cameras?’”
Supreme Court judge Melinda Richards oversaw the judge-only trial in which Dickson sought to delay a vote on the council’s urban design framework – a planning document commonly used by municipalities to guide infrastructure and development in council areas – by 12 months, claiming the council failed to “meaningfully engage” residents on the document.
Dickson, a frequent speaker about common law at My Place events and who regularly appears in the group’s promotional material, also initiated proceedings last month to force the council to reopen council meetings to the public and allow people to film meetings.
The council is set to vote on the framework next month. Its meetings, which were streamed online while the gallery was closed and allowed people to register to ask questions, reopened last month after three months.
The court heard debate between Dickson and the council about whether the concept of a 20-minute city was part of a “United Nations Agenda”, and the plaintiff recounted a speech from former member for Kew Tim Smith decrying local councils.
Dickson is not a resident of Yarra Ranges Shire, but his court action is being run on behalf of “The People of Yarra Ranges”. He runs the website Constitution Watch, and the court heard this was his first self-represented trial.
Islip was one of two council staff cross-examined by Dickson on Thursday. He was probed about his claims of feeling unsafe during meetings.
“You just provided that there was name-calling and people were questioning your professional integrity. They’re not threats, are they?” Dickson asked Islip.
“It is threatening to me when someone is aggressively yelling at me in a derogatory way. I experience that as threatening behaviour,” Islip responded.
Dickson: “But it’s not a threat, like ‘I’m going to pull out a knife if you don’t do what I say’?”
Ipson: “When I’m experiencing a threat, I don’t differentiate between the two; I take it as a threat.”
The court heard that no charges had been laid despite police being present at the meeting, and Dickson described the council’s moves to close meetings and revert to a sign-up system when they re-opened as “an overreaction to passionate residents [who were] failing to be heard in a meaningful way by council.”
“Council were putting tables up as barriers in between them in the gallery. There was no danger – there’s a demographic of 50 to 60-year-olds attending the meeting,” he said.
“No one was there to get aggressive or to threaten, or to hurt or to follow [councillors] after meetings late at night. There was none of that. That was projected by the council.”
Barrister Edward Gisonda, for the council, rejected Dickson’s assertion that the design framework plan was a secretive plot to introduce three-storey buildings in Monbulk’s main street, pointing out that three-storey buildings were already permitted under the existing overlay for the area and had been for many years.
The hearing was adjourned and the judge will release her decision at a later date.
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.
Most Viewed in National
From our partners
Source: Read Full Article
