Time To Go?

As ballot papers begin arriving in Clarence letterboxes tomorrow, voters are being asked to decide whether the city’s current leadership deserves another term. After years of controversy, complaints and now a formal bullying finding against the Mayor, many will be asking a simple question: is it time for a change?

Written by Christine Bayley

This election should not be about personalities. It should be about leadership, conduct and the culture we want in our city.

Today, The Mercury reported that a Code of Conduct Panel found Clarence Mayor Brendan Blomeley had bullied Councillor Richard James, failed to treat him fairly and behaved in a “dictatorial” manner during a public council meeting. The panel reportedly ordered him to undertake chairman training.

That finding should concern every voter.

Not because councils should be free of disagreement. Quite the opposite. Robust debate, scrutiny and accountability are essential parts of democracy.

The concern is that the finding relates to the conduct of the Mayor towards a fellow elected councillor who was simply doing his job.

According to The Mercury‘s report, Councillor James was interrupted, spoken down to, threatened with removal from the chamber and treated in a “childlike manner”. The panel ultimately found he had been bullied.

This forum raised concerns immediately after the meeting.

Clarence Community Forum wrote to all councillors expressing support for Councillor James. We described the Mayor’s conduct as dismissive, aggressive and disrespectful. We also observed a clear difference between the way Councillor James was treated and the way another councillor was treated later in the same meeting.

The Mayor did not respond.

Twelve months later, a formal Code of Conduct Panel upheld a complaint concerning the same incident and found that Councillor James had been bullied.

Richard James was not a political activist addressing the public gallery.

He was not an anonymous social media critic.

He was a fellow councillor, elected by the people of Clarence.

If a councillor cannot ask questions without being publicly belittled, what message does that send about the culture inside our council chamber?

The Richard James incident occurred in 2025, but many residents will recognise it as part of a broader pattern.

Over recent years, Brendan Blomeley has repeatedly found himself at the centre of public controversies involving conduct, judgement and the treatment of others.

Many will remember the widespread criticism over his social media comments regarding golliwog dolls, which led to his removal from an ambassadorial role with the Mental Health Foundation.

Others will remember the public council meeting where a resident questioning the Mayor’s own previous comments about the Kangaroo Bay development was shut down and Mayor Blomeley asked for police to be called. Police were ultimately not involved.

In 2024, allegations concerning bullying, intimidation and the treatment of women were raised in Tasmania’s Parliament under parliamentary privilege. Those allegations were not findings of a court or tribunal and should not be presented as such. Nevertheless, they became part of the public conversation about leadership and behaviour.

Voters may also recall the court matter involving messages sent to Mr Blomeley’s former parents-in-law. The ABC reported that the charges were proven in court and convictions were recorded. Those convictions were later set aside on appeal and replaced with a good behaviour bond.

Any one of those incidents might be dismissed as a mistake, a misunderstanding or an isolated controversy.

The problem is that there are so many of them.
At some point the issue ceases to be any individual incident.
The issue becomes the pattern.

A pattern of conflict.

A pattern of complaints.

A pattern where criticism too often becomes confrontation.

A pattern where people asking questions appear to be viewed as opponents rather than participants in democratic debate.

Is this culture costing Clarence good people?

The councillor found to have been bullied by the Mayor is not seeking re-election. Three current women councillors are also not recontesting. Only seven of the 23 candidates seeking election to Clarence council are women. It would be wrong to claim that any of these decisions were caused by the Mayor unless those councillors have publicly said so. People leave public office for many reasons.

But voters are entitled to ask broader questions about culture.

Are councillors treated with respect?

Do people feel safe challenging decisions?

Is the council chamber a place where independent voices are encouraged, or merely tolerated?

And what example is being set by the person occupying the chair?

Local government should attract people who are willing to contribute, challenge ideas and represent their communities.

It should not require people to accept intimidation, humiliation or unequal treatment as part of the job.

As ballot papers arrive this week, Clarence residents do not need to rely on rumours or political spin.

The record is public.

The conduct findings are public.

The controversies are public.

The pattern is public.

Voters now have the opportunity to decide whether that record deserves another term.