Beaten but unbowed

ROD WISE

Like the feisty Scot that he is, David Hamilton went out with a bang not a whimper. Being the rugged, ex-union official that he was, the former mayor of Shellharbour still knows how to throw a telling brick.

“The Greens,” he said of the pack that had nipped ceaselessly at his heels in the declining months of his mayoralty, “the greens are oxygen thieves – some of them don’t deserve to be representatives of this city. These people have done nothing for this community but try and orchestrate opposition to everything Shellharbour Council has done.”

His own ALP didn’t fare much better, either. Particularly the Minister for Local Government, Paul Lynch, whose decision it was to sack the council.

“I was told of my sacking by a journalist,” he said. “What would it have cost him to make a personal phone call. I was very disappointed by the lack of loyalty shown me by an ALP minister. But what goes around, comes around. I hope that one day a journalist taps him on the shoulder and says, ‘by the way, the Premier has just sacked you’.”

He is much kinder towards the two local members of parliament, Jennie George and Lylea McMahon, particularly the former. And the ALP machine?

“I wrote to Head Office, to the Premier and the Minister during the inquiry when we being attacked over caucusing, telling them that we were doing no more than carrying out ALP rules.” And the response? Mr Lynch’s decision said far more than any written reply.

Despite the deep wound of being dismissed by a government of his own persuasion, the former mayor is determined to salvage something from the rubble.

“Shellharbour Council achieved a great deal,” he asserted. “We got the marina back on track, upgraded the airport, opened the lake entrance, and doubled the pensioner rebate. These are the things we have done, irrespective of the Greens’ opposition. We have the lowest rates, free sporting facilities – how long can we keep them?”

Despite the flashees of resentment, David Hamilton was rather subdued that afternoon in Lamerton House; whether he thought the coldest day of the year outside was somehow appropriate given the frigidity inside its air-conditioned bubble, he didn’t say. Maybe he was just tired of it all.

“Yes, I expected the sacking; I’m not surprised. But it is sad for some councillors who have put their heart and soul into Shellharbour Council. I’m disappointed for them. For myself, I felt very proud and honoured to have been mayor and believe I carried out the role with dignity.”

As for some of his other colleagues, with whom he has had some memorable battles, he was unrepentent to the last: “Things went off the rails because of opposition within the council. We are like a board of directors, but it is very sad to say that some councillors felt that their sole purpose in life was to be in opposition. They couldn’t understand that when the council was attacked, they were too.”

But in politics, isn’t opposition to be expected? And why did that opposition get on top of the council?

“These attacks didn’t get on top of the council because it carried on functioning as a council. This (internal) group with the help of outside people found a route to the Department of Local Government. The Land and Environment Court case didn’t help, either. But I don’t regret we took that case to court. If you divulge confidential information for financial or political gain then it is corruption and has to be addressed. Otherwise, the whole local govern-ment system would crumble.”

So, if it was so successful, why did the council fail to generate public support when under Green attack? Because Labor voters might have seen it as too close to their natural opponents, the developers? His reply was an emphatic “No”.

“There are 65,000 people in this city and the overwhelming majority are contented,” he said. “Contented people don’t make noise. They are like the cat who lies there, purring. There were just a handful of the disgruntled beating a drum.”

Looking back now, does he have any regrets? “Yes,” he said, to a reporter accustomed to hearing the softening words of belated acceptance. “I believe I should have been firmer, more severe.”

More severe? In what way? “Warning people, having motions passed about people’s behaviour, demanding apologies, referring cases to the council’s code of conduct committee. But I believe in healthy, open debate.”

And, with that, David Hamilton’s starring role as the subject of very much open debate, however healthy, began to fade into the dusk of a very, very gloomy afternoon.