0°C | Friday January 23, 2026 
21 January 2026
North Sydney Liberal councillor Jessica Keen said she was prevented from speaking to her own rescission motion at a snap council meeting on Wednesday morning, after the chair moved to put the question before she had exercised her right of reply.
The extraordinary meeting was convened to consider a notice of rescission seeking to overturn Monday night’s endorsement of a 53–63% special rate variation. The rescission, moved by Keen and seconded by Efi Carr and James Spenceley, was defeated on the same 7–3 voting split that has characterised all decisions on the rate rise.
The defeat cleared the way for council to proceed with a submission to the NSW IPART regulatory tribunal by the 2 February deadline.
Keen said after the meeting that she had been “silenced in the chamber by the mayor” despite being the mover of the rescission motion.
“I reserved my right of reply as the mover of the motion. I was then refused the ability to speak to the motion that we had put forward,” Keen said.
“I’m outraged that we have no ability to speak to motions that we put forward. I have a right as a North Sydney resident, an elected North Sydney councillor, to speak to a motion regarding rate rises.”
During the meeting, the mayor initially invited Keen to speak to the motion before Keen formally reserved her right of reply.
After two speakers in favour and two against, the chair moved to put the rescission to the vote.
When Keen attempted to assert her right of reply, the chair ruled her out of order and accepted a procedural motion from Cr Shannon Welch that the question be put. That procedural motion was carried, after which the rescission itself was immediately voted down.
Mayor Zoe Baker argued that the rescission was reckless and unsupported by analysis, saying no commercial board would tolerate an ad hoc approach to rate setting and that councillors opposing the rise had failed to put forward alternatives during consultation.
View this post on Instagram
Speaking in support of the rescission, Carr said Monday night’s decision committed council to large multi-year rate increases that “go too far and go too quickly”, arguing the outcome would make many residents substantially worse off, particularly apartment owners and those on fixed incomes. Spenceley said he supported the rescission to allow further work on a more measured and equitable approach, criticising what he described as a dismissive attitude by Council towards income constrained residents. Speaking against the rescission, Cr MaryAnn Beregi said there was no new information to justify reopening the decision, pointed to the volume of analysis already undertaken by council staff, and said delaying the process risked missing the IPART submission deadline.
The episode turned on the interaction between two provisions of council’s code of meeting practice: one allowing a motion to be put after two speakers for and against, and another requiring that a mover be given a right of reply before a vote is taken.
Despite the procedural dispute, the Local Government Act provides that a failure to comply with a code of meeting practice does not invalidate a resolution passed at a meeting.
Keen said she had intended to argue that the rescission reflected the outcome of community consultation, noting that 52% of respondents preferred the rate peg only and just 22% supported the option adopted by council.
Keen said in prepared remarks she was unable to deliver that her proposed alternative “offers a middle ground”, retaining the rate peg for general rates while applying a one-off 30% increase to the minimum rate rather than compounding increases of over 60% over three years.
Council closed the meeting immediately after the vote, with no further debate.