Kempsey Shire councillor Noel Selby has refused to resign despite being formally censured by his fellow councillors after an independent investigation found that he posted a violent Facebook comment directed at a woman discussing domestic violence. Selby disputes the finding and maintains that someone hacked his account.
The dispute began with a comment on a Facebook account associated with Selby that appeared to tell a woman it was a pity she had not been bashed. The woman had raised concerns involving alleged domestic violence. The remark prompted complaints and deep concern among people working to support women affected by abuse.
Kempsey Shire Council engaged independent investigators to examine the complaint. Lead investigator Jennifer Perry concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that Selby posted the message and that it breached the council’s code of conduct. The finding was considered by councillors as part of the local government’s formal disciplinary process.
At a council meeting, councillors voted to censure Selby and urged him to step down. They also recommended that he undertake a men’s behaviour-change program and referred the matter to the NSW Office of Local Government for further consideration. The censure is a formal public reprimand; it does not automatically remove him from office.
Selby remains adamant that his account was compromised. In a written statement reported by the ABC, he said his Facebook page had been hacked, declared that he opposed domestic violence and insisted he would continue serving on the council. He has referred to information he says supports his claim that another person accessed the account.
The allegation is especially serious because it concerns a woman discussing domestic and family violence. People seeking help after abuse often face uncertainty about whether they will be believed, whether disclosing their experiences will expose them to further harm and where they can safely turn. A hostile message from an account associated with an elected representative can increase those fears. The investigator’s finding and the councillor’s denial both remain on the public record, but the council’s censure signals that the conduct described was considered incompatible with the standards expected of a local office-holder.
The financial effects of domestic violence are easy to overlook beside the immediate risk of injury. Survivors may need to leave a home suddenly, find emergency accommodation, replace essential belongings, take time off work or arrange care for children. Some experience financial control, coerced debts or the loss of access to bank accounts. Transport, legal advice and ongoing counselling can add further costs. Services supporting women and families therefore have an economic role as well as a safety role. They help people navigate housing and financial pressures that can make escaping an abusive relationship more difficult.
In regional communities those problems can be heightened by limited housing choices and distance between services. A person who needs to remain near a child’s school or a workplace may struggle to find a safe alternative address. Public transport can be scarce and private travel expensive. Confidentiality is particularly important when residents know one another and a person may fear being recognised while asking for assistance. The dispute involving Selby has placed those vulnerabilities in the local political spotlight, even though the investigation itself concerned a social media comment rather than the delivery of a specific support program.
Mayor Kinne Ring said councillors believed censure alone would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct described in the investigator’s report. She argued the community had every reason to expect local representatives to condemn threats and violent language, especially where women raising domestic violence concerns were involved.
The issue has put the council under significant pressure from local residents and domestic violence advocates. June Wilson, from the support organisation Kempsey Families, welcomed stronger action but expressed concern about whether a councillor who denied responsibility could meaningfully engage in a behaviour-change program.
Local councillors are responsible for decisions that directly affect the conditions in which those services operate. Councils make choices about community facilities, local roads, planning, grants and the use of public spaces. They also set a tone in their dealings with residents and organisations that ask for assistance. A council’s code of conduct is intended to protect standards of decision-making and public confidence. Censure can be an important expression of disapproval, but it is not the same as dismissal, criminal prosecution or an independent determination of every fact beyond the scope of the conduct inquiry.
A claim that an online account was hacked is capable of being investigated through available digital evidence. Access records, device information, correspondence with a platform and the circumstances of a disputed post may all be relevant, though their availability and significance differ from case to case. Selby maintains that someone else was responsible. The independent investigator nevertheless concluded on the balance of probabilities that he posted the comment. That is the evidentiary standard used in the conduct process, not a finding of criminal guilt. The council has acted on the report while Selby continues to dispute its conclusion.
For other Australians facing account compromise, the controversy highlights a genuine consumer-security problem. Social media accounts can be valuable targets for fraudsters seeking to impersonate a trusted person, collect information or damage a reputation. Secure passwords, multi-factor authentication and prompt reporting of suspicious access can reduce some risks, although no single precaution eliminates them. These general cybersecurity measures do not establish whether Selby’s account was compromised. They help explain why digital attribution matters when statements posted under an identifiable name can have consequences for a person’s employment, reputation and public position.
The local context has made the controversy especially sensitive. Domestic and family violence is a major issue for services operating on the NSW Mid North Coast, and advocates say harmful comments from people in positions of public authority can make it harder for victims and survivors to feel safe speaking out.
Selby’s refusal to resign means further action would depend on the powers available to relevant authorities. Councillors can express formal disapproval and ask an elected member to leave, but they cannot simply dismiss a colleague by passing a motion. The Office of Local Government may consider the referral and any action available under state law.
The council’s next options are constrained by law. Elected representatives do not lose office merely because a majority of colleagues find their conduct unacceptable. Formal powers may sit with external oversight agencies, and different kinds of misconduct have different procedures and thresholds. A public call to resign applies political and moral pressure, not an automatic legal sanction. That distinction protects elected office from arbitrary removal while allowing complaints to be considered through established processes. It can frustrate residents who want an immediate outcome, but it also prevents a council majority from simply voting out a political opponent.
Men’s behaviour-change programs are normally discussed in the context of accountability for violent or controlling behaviour. A council recommendation to undertake such a program is not equivalent to a court order or proof of domestic violence by the councillor. Local advocates have questioned what engagement would mean for someone who denies responsibility for the conduct examined. That concern is about whether a program can serve its intended purpose, not whether participation could settle the disputed authorship of a social media post. Those are distinct matters requiring different forms of assessment.
The Office of Local Government’s consideration, if it takes further action, will be important for determining whether the matter leads to consequences beyond public censure. In the meantime, residents will continue to deal with the council on practical matters such as local infrastructure, planning and community services. The controversy is unlikely to disappear simply because Selby refuses to resign. It raises a broader question about how elected bodies maintain trust when their standards of conduct clash with a member’s account of his own behaviour, and how they support residents affected by violence without allowing a dispute to overwhelm that work.
The council has released information about its handling of the complaint, including the investigator’s conclusion and the opportunity given to Selby to respond. Selby’s denial remains part of the public record, but the council has accepted the finding and taken formal action on that basis.
For Kempsey residents, the dispute goes to trust in local representation and the standards expected of those elected to make decisions on the community’s behalf. Selby has made clear he intends to stay, while council leaders have made equally clear that they want him to leave.
