Ron Mildren, Libby Hall and Tim Quilty said they first became aware of the claims through an anonymous email in late 2016, but were told by council it was ‘not an issue’ and that contact from the ombudsman’s was ‘a general inquiry’. 

Council chief executive Patience Harrington has refuted their claims.

Cr Quilty and Cr Hall said had they been fully informed about the issue, they would not have voted to pass last year’s budget as it was.

Cr Mildren and Quilty said they only discovered the full extent of the overcharging when they read the public ombudsman’s report yesterday, with Cr Quilty saying it was “much worse than anything we’d been told” while Cr Mildren said the levy “was done to avoid transparency”.

“It’s irrelevant if it was spent on council services, even though that might benefit the community, the fact is it was found not to be transparent, if not deliberately deceitful to avoid public reaction,” Cr Mildren said. 

“It’s simply not good enough to make the excuse the practice wasn’t illegal, in my opinion it was unethical and possibly administrative malfeasance – it simply fails the pub test.

“The ombudsman investigation revealed effectively a (council staff) culture of media management and spin in the presentation and revenue collection regarding the waste levy to avoid a negative public reaction – it could be wider but I have no evidence of that.”

Ms Harrington said councillors had been briefed on several occasions in the past 12 months about the ombudsman’s investigation, with copies of the report provided on Monday.

“There is documented evidence that the councillors were briefed on April 10, 2017 regarding the notification to the council by the Ombudsman on March 24, 2017 of an investigation into the waste management levy,” she said. “At that time, the councillors were told that the investigation could be subject to a private ruling or tabled in Parliament.”

Overall Cr Hall said, councillors “weren’t made aware of the full situation” and could only make decisions based on what staff told them “in good faith”.

“We knew in March that officers had been in contact with staff in April last year about the charges because a complaint had been made but we were told basically it wasn’t a problem, just a general inquiry,” she said

“It was a lot more than I was anticipating it to be.

“Last year had I known where it was going I wouldn’t have supported the budget.

RELATED: 

“I would have wanted the issue addressed in the budget.”

Ms Harrington said councillors received an update on June 26 and a written report with background and a full briefing on September 4.

On March 5, Ms Harrington said, councillors were given a report on the investigation’s status and an outline of council’s response.