The news that Hepburn Shire CEO Bradley Thomas was assaulted in Daylesford earlier this week should shock us all. When a senior local government officer cannot walk down the street without being targeted in anger, something has gone badly wrong in our community. Reports indicate that a heated exchange ended with a coffee thrown at Mr Thomas who has confirmed that the matter has been referred to police.
This behaviour is intolerable in any civil society. Frustration and disagreement with Council decisions are no excuse for vilification, abuse, physical confrontations or violence.
Council has already warned that hostility directed at its staff is becoming more frequent. In recent statements, Council noted an escalation in abusive behaviour and misinformation circulating online.
Council has expressed grave concerns about aggressive and disrespectful behaviour and the growing toll this takes on staff who are simply doing their jobs. Council has said repeatedly that respectful behaviour is non-negotiable. But the incident in Albert Street shows how little impact such warnings have when toxic commentary is allowed to fester in local online forums.
Local public online forums have allowed exaggerated claims, personal attacks and unfounded speculation about councillors and staff to proliferate. Actions like these erode the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. When people read daily that public officials are corrupt, incompetent or malicious, with little or no evidence, some begin to believe that harassment or confrontation is justified.
Australian law draws a clear distinction between robust political debate and behaviour that targets individuals with hostility or intimidation. People are free to criticise council decisions, challenge policy and express frustration with local governance, but that freedom does not extend to threats, harassment or personal abuse. The law is unambiguous on this point. Using a phone or online platform to menace or harass someone is a criminal offence. Repeatedly targeting an identifiable individual, circulating damaging falsehoods or escalating criticism into personal hostility is not protected speech. These are actions the law treats as intimidation, defamation or stalking, not democratic expression.
Being an online moderator is not easy. Taking down abusive and hostile content can quickly lead to moderators themselves being abused and criticised, but it is clear that online moderators who allow such behaviour to proliferate are not neutral bystanders. Australian courts have ruled that page administrators can be held responsible for defamatory or harmful comments if they fail to act. A community forum that tolerates hostility directed at individuals is not promoting free speech; it is facilitating a climate in which aggression is normalised and the boundary between criticism and abuse disappears.
The right to speak freely must be balanced with the responsibility to prevent harm. Posts that have crossed the line from criticism to abuse should not be left on social media forums by moderators.
Locally, some of the loudest voices in these discussions are well known and routinely slip into personal hostility. Their posts do not exist in isolation. On the one hand they encourage others to behave badly, on the other the increasingly toxic online behaviour they create discourages many from participating at all. Worse, the toxic online behaviour normalises unacceptable behaviour in everyday life.
This pattern is not unique to Hepburn Shire. Across regional Victoria, councils are reporting increasing instances of hostility toward staff. An ABC investigation last year detailed cases in which council workers endured threats, stalking and physical intimidation. At the recent Municipal Association of Victoria conference, delegates passed a motion to address the growing problem of occupational violence and abuse directed at councillors and staff, highlighting the urgent need for safer workplaces and a more respectful public environment. It is part of a broader problem in Australian civic life, where frustration is amplified through social media until it becomes something more dangerous than ordinary political disagreement.
But while the problem is widespread, the responsibility for our local discourse sits with us. Residents who value open debate must insist that it stays grounded in fact and respect. People who run community pages must take their role seriously and remove content that is inflammatory or false. Users must call out hostility rather than reward it with likes and comments. And those who feel political anger must remember that council employees are human beings, not targets.
Mr Thomas did not deserve to be assaulted. No council officer deserves to work in fear. Our community cannot pretend that this incident appeared out of nowhere. It grew in the soil of unchecked hostility and constant online agitation. If we want a safer and more constructive public sphere, we need to confront the environment that allowed this to happen and make it clear that the line was crossed long ago. Only then can we hope to rebuild a culture of civic respect.
The Editorial Team of The Wombat Post.
