Snowy Monaro Regional Council councillor Andrew Thaler regularly posts videos to YouTube and Facebook. Photo: Screenshot/YouTube.
The NSW Court of Appeal’s ruled a civil court needs to again look at whether Snowy Monaro councillor Andrew Thaler’s behaviour while in office warrants a suspension.
The divisive councillor was originally handed a three-month suspension from the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure on 28 July 2025 – his second suspension (at that time) since taking up office in 2024.
These were for five “crude and offensive” comments made within YouTube videos made on 12, 18, 26 and 30 March 2025, and a Facebook post made on 25 March, 2025, regarding two councillors and two members of the public.
Mr Thaler appealed the decision to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT or tribunal) which found that while his behaviour was sustained and serious, he hadn’t been afforded procedural fairness in regards to the decision and there were other disciplinary options open.
It ruled the suspension shouldn’t have been issued and instead ordered he be reprimanded, cease engaging in the misconduct identified, make an apology and undertake a course of training.
It’s this ruling the department took to the Court of Appeal.
The outcome of this appeal is significant, given Mr Thaler served a third suspension* between 23 February and 22 May 2026.
According to NSW law, anyone suspended from public office three times (no matter the length of the suspension) is automatically banned from holding any public position for five years.
In the Court of Appeal’s decision, Justice Mark Leeming outlined there was no dispute that Mr Thaler had engaged in “misconduct” through his social media posts.
“The statements were crude, belittling and abusive. Some identified that he was a local government councillor, and some of his comments were directed to conduct within the council,” the ruling stated.
“There was no challenge, nor could there be, to the tribunal’s conclusions that the statements constituting the misconduct were ‘offensive, humiliating and disgraceful’.”
The department’s legal team argued the tribunal was wrong in finding Mr Thaler hadn’t been afforded procedural fairness, it shouldn’t have considered the five instances where he breached the council’s code of conduct under a “totality principle” (which is often used in criminal proceedings where several charges arise from the same offending), and that the disciplinary action ordered was “manifestly inadequate”.
On whether the tribunal’s orders weren’t punishment enough, Justice Leeming noted Mr Thaler’s misconduct had been directed at multiple people on multiple occasions.
“It was not a single oral encounter, but a result of a deliberate intention to make available the respondent’s views to the consumers of social media, into the indefinite future,” he stated.
“Secondly, some of the misconduct was committed at a time when the respondent knew that the [department] had prepared a report on particular charges and had provided it to him in draft, and indeed the mentions of that process in his YouTube video of 18 March 2025 make it clear that even then the respondent failed to see the seriousness of his misconduct.”
Justice Leeming also found there were no “redeeming” features of Mr Thaler’s conduct which he said had seemed to have been “driven by a desire to attract attention on social media platforms from those who are attracted to verbal abuse”.
He ruled Mr Thaler’s misconduct was at the more serious end of the spectrum of verbal abuse, was sustained and deliberate, and was made with “conscious disregard” of earlier conduct that led to his first suspension.
“In those circumstances, a reprimand, and order to cease, an apology and an obligation to undertake training were a wholly inadequate response,” Justice Leeming found.
Justice Leeming ordered the case head back to the tribunal for redetermination.
“Although the [department] has succeeded in setting aside the decision of the tribunal, in a real sense, it is not possible as yet to know the outcome of the appeal to this court,” he stated.
“Following the further hearing in the tribunal, there are likely to be only two possible outcomes: either (a) a confirmation of the suspension imposed by the [department] or (b) disciplinary action falling short of the suspension which will therefore be comparable to that imposed by the tribunal.”
*Mr Thaler’s first suspension was for the period from 13 May to 4 August, 2025, for “crude and disparaging” statements in a YouTube video and various Facebook posts (published on 5, 6 and 14 March 2025) regarding a fellow councillor.
His third and most recent suspension was served from 23 February to 22 May of this year for various social media posts and videos made throughout May, July and August of 2025. Mr Thaler originally appealed this decision but eventually lost.
In summary, Mr Thaler has served three suspensions, but the second one was overturned by NCAT and made null and void. This was appealed by the department, accepted by the Court of Appeal and now NCAT must determine whether a suspension should be reissued or an alternative order made.
Mr Thaler is also subject to stop-bullying proceedings in the Industrial Relations Court. This matter is yet to be finalised.
A decision is also pending from NCAT regarding Mr Thaler’s alleged breaches of the performance improvement order placed on Snowy Monaro Regional Council in February 2025.
