Kingston and Local Government Standards Panel [No 2] - [2025] WASAT 91

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA)
CITATION:   KINGSTON and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [No 2] [2025] WASAT 91
MEMBER:   MR D AITKEN, SENIOR MEMBER
HEARD:   16 JULY 2025
DELIVERED          :   8 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CC 1449 of 2023
BETWEEN:   DANIEL JEFFERY JOHN KINGSTON
Applicant
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL
Respondent
AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervenor

Catchwords:

Local Government Standards Panel - Conduct of councillor - Improper use of office - Intention to cause detriment - Contravention of clause 18 of the Model Code (a rule of conduct) - Minor breach - Appropriate sanction - Public apology and training

Legislation:

Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA), sch 1
Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 2.10(1)(c), s 5.102A, s 5.105, s 5.105(1), s 5.106, s 5.125(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 24, s 25(2), s 27, s 29(1), s 29(3)(c)(ii), s 31(1), s 37(1)
The Criminal Code (WA), s 75

Result:

Decision of the Legal Government Standards Panel set aside and substituted with decision of the Tribunal of a minor breach regarding one comment with sanctions of a public apology and training

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Self-represented
Respondent	:	Mr C Economidis
Intervenor	:	Mr C Economidis

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Intervenor	:	State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Kingston and Local Government Standards Panel [2025] WASAT 43
R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13
Treby v Local Government Standards Panel [2010] WASAT 81

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

On or about 9 June 2023 Councillor Daniel Jeffery John Kingston (Cr Kingston), a member of the Council (the Council) of the City of Joondalup (the City), made certain comments on Facebook (the comments) regarding comments made by another member of the Council and their voting record in respect of a motion before the Council relating to a draft Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaption Plan (the draft CHRMAP).
A complaint was made to the Local Government Standards Panel (the Panel) regarding the comments (the Complaint).
On 8 August 2023 the Panel found that Cr Kingston had committed a minor breach pursuant to s 5.105 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LG Act) and cl 18 of the model code of conduct in Sch 1 of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA) (the Model Code) when he made the comments.
On 20 November 2023 the Panel decided to order Cr Kingston to make a public apology and undertake the training specified in the order (the Decision).
Cr Kingston has applied to the Tribunal pursuant to s 5.125(1) of the LG Act for review of the Decision. The Tribunal has made an order pursuant to s 25(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) that the Decision is stayed until further order.
The Attorney General of Western Australia (the Intervenor) has intervened in the proceeding pursuant to s 37(1) of the SAT Act. The State Solicitor's Office represents both the Panel and the Intervenor and has informed the Tribunal that the Panel will confine its participation in the proceeding to providing the documents it is required to provide under s 24 of the SAT Act and that substantive argument in the matter will be presented by the Intervenor.[1]
[1] The State Solicitor's Office says that this approach is in accordance with the principle recognised in R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13. Also, see Treby v Local Government Standards Panel [2010] WASAT 81 (Treby) at [16] where the Tribunal stated that it is appropriate for the Panel not to play an active role in review proceedings, having regard to the possibility that the Tribunal may invite the Panel to reconsider the decision (s 31(1) of the SAT Act) or make an order on the review setting aside the decision and sending the matter back to the Panel for reconsideration (s 29(3)(c)(ii) of the SAT Act).
When the Intervenor and Cr Kingston filed their statements of issues, facts and contentions, an issue was raised by Cr Kingston, from which arose the question of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the matter. For the reasons I gave in Kingston and Local Government Standards Panel [2025] WASAT 43, I determined that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the matter, and the matter was then listed for a final hearing on 16 July 2025.
The Intervenor had filed a statement of issues, facts and contentions and Cr Kingston had filed a responsive statement of issues, facts and contentions. The Intervenor had then filed a statement in reply to Cr Kingston's statement and Cr Kingston had then filed a response to that statement.
The result of those statements was that in this review proceeding the question of whether Cr Kingston committed a minor breach is confined to just one of the comments he made.
The Panel had filed the bundle of documents required to be filed by it under s 24 of the SAT Act (s 24 bundle) and Cr Kingston had filed a book of the documents he wished to rely upon which were not in the s 24 bundle.
During the final hearing I took into evidence the s 24 bundle and Cr Kingston's book of documents and counsel for the Intervenor, Mr Economidis and Cr Kingston made oral submissions.
For the reasons which follow I have decided that Cr Kingston committed a minor breach under s 5.105 of the LG Act and I will order him to make a public apology and to undertake training.

Issues to be determined

The primary issues for me to determine are:
First issue: whether Cr Kingston committed a minor breach under s 5.105 of the LG Act by contravening cl 18 of the Model Code; and
Second issue: if the first issue is determined in the affirmative, what is the appropriate sanction to impose under s 5.110(6) of the LG Act.
Clause 18 of the Model Code provides as follows:
A council member must not make improper use of their office -
(a)to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for the council member or any other person; or
(b)to cause detriment to the local government or any other person.
There are four sub-issues to be determined to determine the first issue (whether Cr Kingston contravened cl 18 of the Model Code):
Sub-issue 1.1: whether Cr Kingston was a member of the Council when he made the comments;
Sub-issue 1.2: whether Cr Kingston made use of his office as a member of the Council when he made the comments;
Sub-issue 1.3: whether Cr Kingston's use of his office was improper; and
Sub-issue 1.4: whether Cr Kingston intended to gain an advantage or cause detriment.
It is not in dispute that Cr Kingston was a member of the Council when he made the comments, and I so find.
It is also not in dispute that Cr Kingston made use of his office as a member of the Council when he made his comments on Facebook, and I so find. Cr Kingston does not dispute this. Although Cr Kingston made the comments using his private Facebook account (not his Facebook account as a councillor), his comments clearly identified himself as a member of the Council.
The sub-issues which are in contention are whether Cr Kingston's use of his office was improper and whether he intended to gain an advantage or cause detriment.
Cr Kingston has raised the following additional issues:
Issue 3: Whether the Panel gave procedural fairness to Cr Kingston.
Issue 4: Whether the Panel's sanction decision was in excess of its statutory power.
Issue 5: Whether the free exercise of any political right has been hindered by threats or intimidation.
Issue 6: Whether the Panel lacked jurisdiction to deal with the complaint, make a finding, or order a sanction be imposed.

Relevant facts

I find the following relevant facts, which are not in dispute.
The City adopted the Model Code during an ordinary meeting of the Council held on 18 May 2021 and published a code of conduct which is materially the same terms as the Model Code. For ease of reference, I will refer to the Model Code in these reasons, rather than the City's code of conduct.
Cr Kingston was elected to the Council in October 2021 for a term expiring in October 2025.
At an ordinary meeting of the Council on 23 May 2023, the Council considered the draft CHRMAP which recommended the construction of groynes between Hillarys Boat Harbour and Ocean Reef Marina, to combat erosion.
In response to a question from a council member during that meeting an officer of the City stated that the draft CHRMAP had been peer reviewed to ensure that it met the requirements of SPP 2.6, not to assess the work that the consultants had done in relation to their engineering qualifications.
By a majority of 9:3, the Council endorsed the release of the draft CHRMAP for community consultation (the CHRMAP motion). Cr Kingston was one of the councillors who voted against the CHRMAP motion.
Prior to the CHRMAP motion, Cr Kingston had moved an alternative motion seeking an external peer review of the draft CHRMAP by an engineering firm, but that motion failed.
There were two different types of peer review of the draft CHRMAP which arose at the ordinary meeting of the Council on 23 May 2023. The first type of peer review was to ensure that the draft CHRMAP met the requirements of State Planning Policy 2.6 - Coastal Planning (SPP 2.6) (a compliance peer review). The second type of peer review was a review by an independent engineering firm (an engineering peer review).
A compliance peer review of the draft CHRMAP had been conducted, but an engineering peer review had not been conducted. That was the reason for Cr Kingston moving the unsuccessful motion seeking an external review of the draft CHRMAP by an engineering firm.
One of the councillors who voted in favour of the CHRMAP motion and voted against Cr Kingston's alternative motion was Councillor Christopher May (Cr May).
On or about 9 June 2023, a person posted the following question to a Facebook group chat called 'My Mullaloo & Kallaroo':
Christopher J May where do you stand in relation to the proposed groynes on Mullaloo and Whitfords beaches?
You have been very quiet on this matter and you need to declare your hand!!!!
Cr May posted the following response:
I wouldn't be supportive of groynes, however to be clear a third party report recommends this as a potential option to deal with erosion between now and 2100 as a result of predicted changes to sea levels and weather patters due to climate change.
As we know climate change predictions aren't often borne out in reality either (Sydney harbour and Manhattan were supposed to be under water by now).
The City has no plans to construct groynes and said report will be going out to community consultation very shortly where I am sure there will be ample feedback.'
Cr Kingston then posted the following comments:
Christopher J May you say 'The city has no plans to construct groynes'. You voted to endorse the report for community consultation which endorses the management actions to 'Implement the proposed adaptation pathways for each Coastal Management Zone' which is to construct five groynes by 2025. One on Mullaloo Beach and four between Hillarys to Kallaroo.'
You did not support going to another engineering company to have a peer review of the technical assumptions of the engineering that made this recommendation and whether the groynes along mullaloo/kallaroo (sic) were the most appropriate way to address the coastal erosion.
Cr May then posted the following comments:
I voted to endorse the draft report to go out to community consultation. Community consultation is a good thing. The feedback will be no doubt valuable prior to the report being finalised and brought back to the Council. So why would I oppose consultation?
By not opposing a report going out to community consultation does not mean I support the construction of groynes.
Supporting community consultation on a report (that I confirmed in the meeting has been peer reviewed already), does not constitute supporting the contents of the report or endorsing the final version of the report.
It is also inappropriate for a fellow elected member to be utilising Facebook to draw conclusions as to my views on any matter. You like anyone are welcome to call me at any time to discuss my view on this or any other matter. But you have not.
Therefore, I would ask that you do not draw inaccurate conclusions as to my motives or rationale from my voting record on a Council decision.
Cr Kingston then posted the following comments:
'Christopher J May Conclusions can reasonably be drawn by how an elected member votes. There was no imputation of motive, rationale, or reflection that your decision was improper.
No inaccurate conclusions have been drawn except statements of fact that:
1)you endorsed the report for community consultation, which endorses the management actions to design and construct five groynes by 2025 (evidenced by the image you attached).
2)you did not support a peer review of the engineering to determine whether the groynes are the most appropriate way to address coastal erosion.
You are also very well aware that the engineering has not been externally peer reviewed. It is misinformation to suggest otherwise. What has been peer reviewed is the community facing document with SPP 2.6 not the engineering of the technical CHRMAP.
I believe that the context of comments is as important as their content.
Whether addressing your public comments publicly was fair or unfair I will let others decide.'
Cr May then posted the following comment:
Daniel Kingston your comment accusing a fellow elected member on Facebook of misinformation is noted.
Cr Kingston subsequently posted the following comment:
Christopher Of course you are quite correct, community consultation is an important part of the process and especially for a project such as this. The reason why I engaged with you on this was to facilitate a discussion on the matter. I apologise if you feel that I have been unfair to your position or misrepresented you in any way.
I will refer to the following comment by Cr Kingston in the Facebook group chat:
You are also very well aware that the engineering has not been externally peer reviewed. It is misinformation to suggest otherwise.[2]
as the Misinformation Comment.
[2] See [34] above.
I will refer to the following comment by Cr Kingston in the Facebook group chat:
I apologise if you feel that I have been unfair to your position or misrepresented you in any way.[3]
as the Apology.
[3] See [36] above.

The relevant legislation

The review of the Decision falls within the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Under s 29(1) of the SAT Act, when dealing with this matter the Tribunal has the functions and discretions corresponding to those exercisable by the Panel.
Section 5.106 of the LG Act provides that a finding that a minor breach has occurred must be based on the evidence from which it may be concluded that it is more likely that the breach occurred than that it did not occur.
Section 5.105(1) of the LG Act provides that a council member commits a minor breach if they contravene a rule of conduct.
Section 5.102A of the LG Act provides that a rule of conduct is a provision in the Model Code that is specified in the Model Code to be a rule of conduct.
Clause 18 of the Model Code is specified to be a rule of conduct.
Therefore, if I conclude on the evidence that it is more likely than not that Cr Kingston breached cl 18 of the Model Code I must find that he committed a minor breach.
Section 27 of the SAT Act provides that:
(1)The review of the Decision is to be by way of a hearing de novo (that is, from the beginning: anew[4]).
(2)The review is not confined to matters that were before the Panel and may involve the consideration of new material.
(3)The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision.
(4)The review is not limited to the reasons given by the Panel for the Decision or the grounds for review set out in the application for review.
[4] Macquarie Dictionary online.
Section 29(3) of the SAT Act provides that the Tribunal may affirm or vary the Decision or set the Decision aside and substitute its own decision or send the matter back to the Panel for reconsideration.

Was Cr Kingston's use of his office improper?

The meaning of 'improper' in cl 18 of the Model Code

The ordinary meaning of 'improper' includes 'unsuitable' and 'inappropriate'. However, the meaning of the word 'improper' cannot be considered in isolation but rather will take its flavour from the surrounding context, which includes an assessment of what is involved in role of a councillor.[5]
[5] Treby [27].
Impropriety consists in a breach of the standards of conduct that would be expected of a person in the position of the councillor by reasonable persons with knowledge of the duties, powers and authority of the position.[6]
[6] Treby [29].
Impropriety does not depend on a councillor's consciousness of impropriety. It is to be judged objectively and does not involve an element of intent.[7]

Cr Kingston's submissions

[7] Treby [30].

Cr Kingston contends that Cr May attempted to conflate the engineering peer review with the compliance peer review by stating that 'Supporting community consultation on a report (that I confirmed in the meeting has been peer reviewed already), does not constitute supporting the contents of the report or endorsing the final version of the report' (Cr May's Peer Review Comment) (emphasis added).[8]
[8] See [33] above.
Cr Kingston contends that Cr May's Peer Review Comment was untrue, because the draft CHRMAP had not been engineering peer reviewed. Cr Kingston says this was a deliberately misleading statement because at the 23 May 2023 Council meeting the City officers had established the opposite.
Cr Kingston submits that whilst he contends that Cr May's Peer Review Comment was deliberately misleading, the word 'misinformation' does not carry this pejorative element. He contends that 'misinformation' is wrong or false information and the use of the word was not an improper use of his office.

Intervenor's submissions

The Intervenor contends that Cr May's Peer Review Comment was unclear regarding the type of peer review he was referring to and, from the perspective of a person reading the comments, it was unclear what type of peer review Cr May was referring to and whether Cr Kingston and Cr May were referring to the same type of peer review.
The Intervenor contends that despite the objective uncertainty, Cr Kingston assumed that Cr May was representing that the draft CHRMAP had been engineering peer reviewed and, on that assumption, accused him of spreading misinformation.
The Intervenor contends that the Misinformation Comment by Cr Kingston constitutes an improper use of his office because his accusation that Cr May was disseminating misinformation on a public forum on Facebook fell below the standard of conduct that would be expected of a person in his position by reasonable persons with knowledge of the duties, powers and authority of his position as a member of the Council. The Intervenor submits that Cr Kingston's conduct in making the Misinformation Comment was objectively improper.

Consideration

The ordinary meaning of 'misinformation' is 'false or misleading information'[9] or 'wrong or misleading information'[10].
[9] Macquarie Dictionary online.
[10] Oxford English Dictionary online.
In my view a reasonable person with the knowledge of the role of a councillor, when considering the exchange between Cr Kingston and Cr May in the Facebook group chat, would have expected Cr Kingston to have been more circumspect before accusing Cr May of disseminating misinformation.
I accept the Intervenor's contention that Cr May's comment was unclear regarding the type of peer review he was referring to.

In my view, it was inappropriate for Cr Kingston to assume that Cr May's comment was referring to an engineering peer review of the draft CHRMAP (instead of a compliance peer review) and, therefore, that Cr May's comment was false, wrong or misleading.
Consequently, considering it objectively, I find that Cr Kingston's conduct in making the Misinformation Comment was an improper use of his office as a councillor.

Did Cr Kingston use his office to gain an advantage or to cause detriment?

The meaning of detriment in cl 18 of the Model Code

The ordinary meaning of 'detriment' is loss or damage done or caused to, or sustained by, any person or thing. The meaning of 'loss' is the 'diminution of one's possessions or advantages; detriment or disadvantage involved in being deprived of something, or resulting from a change in conditions', while 'damage' means 'loss or detriment to one's property, reputation etc' and 'harm done to a thing or person'.[11]
[11] Treby [94] – [95].
A contravention of cl 18 of the Model Code does not depend on actual detriment being suffered by a person. However, it must be established that the councillor believed that the intended result of his or her conduct would be that the other person would suffer detriment.[12]
[12] Treby [96], noting that in Treby whilst the Tribunal was not considering cl 18 of the Model Code, it was considering a rule of conduct in identical terms to cl 18 of the Model Code.
A comment will cause detriment to a person if it diminishes their reputation or cause others to think less favourably of them.[13]

Cr Kingston's submissions

[13] Treby [106].

Cr Kingston contends that it was not his intention to make the community believe that Cr May acted dishonestly in making the Peer Review Comment or to undermine his credibility as a councillor.
Cr Kingston refers to s 2.10(1)(c) of the LG Act, which provides that part of the role of a councillor is to facilitate communication with the community about council decisions and submits that if Cr May's Peer Review Comment was false then there was nothing wrongful about correcting a public comment publicly.

Intervenor's submissions

The Intervenor submits that there were other ways through which Cr Kingston could have addressed his concern regarding Cr May's Peer Review Comment, such as by sending him a private message or telephoning him, but he opted to comment directly on the Facebook group chat in a public forum.
The Intervenor contends that the only rational inference is that Cr Kingston did so because he believed that the result of his conduct would be to make the community believe Cr May acted dishonestly and provided misinformation and to undermine Cr May's credibility as a councillor.

Consideration

I note that immediately following his Peer Review Comment, Cr May stated that Cr Kingston was welcome to call him to discuss his view on the draft CHRMAP going out to community consultation. Cr Kingston did not take up that invitation and proceeded to make the Misinformation Comment.
In my view, it is more likely than not that Cr Kingston's intention in making the Misinformation Comment was to cause detriment to Cr May by diminishing his reputation or causing others to think less favourably of him.

Are the additional issues raised by Cr Kingston relevant?

As set out in [19] above, Cr Kingston has raised Issues 3, 4, 5 and 6 as additional issues.
The Intervenor contends that these additional issues are not matters which arise for determination in this proceeding.
I will deal with each of these additional issues in turn.

Issue 3: Whether the Panel gave procedural fairness to Cr Kingston

The question of whether the Panel gave procedural fairness to Cr Kingston before it made the Decision is not relevant in this proceeding because, as I have explained at [46] above, the review of the Decision is by way of a hearing de novo.

Issue 4: Whether the Panel's sanction decision was in excess of its statutory power

The question of whether the Panel's sanction decision was in excess of its statutory power is not relevant in this proceeding because the review of the Decision is by way of a hearing de novo.

Issue 5: Whether the free exercise of any political right has been hindered by threats or intimidation

Cr Kingston refers to s 75 of The Criminal Code (WA) which provides that it is an offence for a person who by violence, or by threats or intimidation hinders or interferes with the free exercise of any political right by another person.
Cr Kingston then contends that Parliament would not have contemplated the powers of the Panel to extend or be used in a manner to threaten or intimidate or that the Panel can make findings or sanctions decisions that would be an offence under The Criminal Code.
In my view that argument is misconceived, but in any event it is not relevant in this proceeding because the review of the Decision is by way of a hearing de novo.

Issue 6: Whether the Panel lacked jurisdiction to deal with the complaint, make a finding, or order a sanction be imposed

This issue was dealt with in my decision in Kingston and Local Government Standards Panel [2025] WASAT 43, in which I decided that the Panel had authority, or jurisdiction to deal with the Complaint.

Did Cr Kingston commit a minor breach?

I have found that it is more likely than not that the Misinformation Comment made by Cr Kingston constituted an improper use of his office as a councillor which was made to cause detriment to Cr May.
Accordingly, I have decided that when he made the Misinformation Comment, Cr Kingston breached cl 18 of the Model Code.
Consequently, I find that by so doing, Cr Kingston committed a minor breach under s 5.105 of the LG Act.
Because the Decision included findings that other comments posted by Cr Kingston in the Facebook group chat set out in [30] - [36] above, in addition to the Misinformation Comment, constituted a minor breach under s 5.105 of the LG Act, in my view the correct and preferable decision is to set aside the Decision and substitute it with my decision set out above.

What penalty should I impose on Cr Kingston for the minor breach?

Under 5.110(6) of the LG Act, a minor breach is to be dealt with by:
(a)an order that no sanction be imposed; or
(b)an order that:
(i)the person against whom the complaint was made be publicly censured as specified in the order; or
(ii)the person against whom the complaint was made apologise publicly as specified in the order; or
(iii)the person against whom the complaint was made undertake training as specified in the order; or
(iv)the person against whom the complaint was made pay to the local government specified in the order an amount equal to the amount of remuneration and allowances payable by the local government in relation to the complaint.
or
(c)an order for 2 or more of the sanctions described in paragraph (b).

Cr Kingston's submissions

Cr Kingston submits that there should be no sanction applied, or only a sanction requiring training.
Cr Kingston submits that he should not be ordered to make a public apology to Cr May because he made the Apology during the Facebook group chat.
Cr Kingston says that he made the Apology to Cr May because he did not want a situation where he fell out with a fellow elected Council member publicly. Cr Kingston says that he thought Cr May's comments were not correct, but he could see that Cr May was upset about the comments he had made, and he was trying to deal with that when he made the Apology.

Intervenor's submissions

The Intervenor submits that the decision of the Panel to order that Cr Kingston make a public apology to Cr May and undertake training should be affirmed.

Consideration

I accept Cr Kingston's explanation that by making the Apology he was trying to avoid a situation where he had a public falling out with Cr May.
However, in my view the Apology was qualified because, whilst it contained the words 'I apologise', those words were followed by the words 'if you feel that I have been unfair to your position or misrepresented you in any way' (emphasis added).
The ordinary meaning of 'apology' is 'an expression of regret offered for some fault, failure, insult or injury'[14] or 'an acknowledgement of or expression of regret for an offence, mistake, failure or flaw'.[15]
[14] Macquarie Dictionary online.
[15] Oxford English Dictionary online.
In my view the Apology was not an acknowledgment by Cr Kingston that in making the Misinformation Comment there was fault or offence, or failure on his part.
In my view it is important that Cr Kingston makes an unqualified public apology to Cr May for breaching cl 18 of the Model Code by making the Misinformation Comment.
Cr Kingston has accepted that if I find that he has committed a minor breach I should order that he undertake the training specified in the sanction decision of the Panel.
Because the public apology which the Panel ordered Cr Kingston to make to Cr May dealt with other comments posted by Cr Kingston in the Facebook group chat set out in [30] - [36] above, in addition to the Misinformation Comment, in my view the correct and preferable decision is to set aside the decision of the Panel as to sanction and substitute it with the following order requiring Cr Kingston to make a public apology to Cr May and to undertake the training specified in the sanction decision of the Panel.

Orders

I will make the following orders:
The Tribunal orders:
1.The decision of the Local Government Standards Panel delivered on 14 September 2023 that Councillor Daniel Kingston, a councillor of the City of Joondalup, did commit a minor breach under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) and cl 18 of the model code of conduct in Sch 1 of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA) when he made certain comments on Facebook regarding the complainant's comments and voting record in respect to a motion before Council relating to a draft Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaption Plan is set aside and substituted with the following:
Councillor Daniel Kingston, a councillor of the City of Joondalup, committed a minor breach under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) and cl 18 of the model code of conduct in Sch 1 of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA) when he made a comment on Facebook accusing Councillor Christopher May of disseminating misinformation regarding the peer review of a draft Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaption Plan.
2.The order made by the Local Government Standards Panel on 20 November 2023 in relation to the sanctions to be imposed on Councillor Daniel Kingston is set aside and is substituted with the following order:
Public Apology
Councillor Daniel Kingston shall attend the ordinary council meeting of the City of Joondalup first occurring after the expiration of 28 days from the date of this order and shall:
(a)ask the presiding person for his or her permission to address the meeting to make a public apology to Councillor Christopher May;
(b)make the apology immediately after public question time or during the announcements part of the meeting, or at any other time when the meeting is open to the public, as the presiding person thinks fit; and
(c)address the Council as follows, without saying any introductory words before the address, and without making any comments or statement after the address:
I advise the meeting that:
(i)A complaint was made to the Local Government Standards Panel in which it was alleged that I contravened clause 18 of the model code of conduct in Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 when I made certain public comments on Facebook regarding comments made by Councillor Christopher May and his voting record in respect of a motion before the Council relating to a draft Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaption Plan.
(ii)The State Administrative Tribunal has found that I breached clause 18 of the model code of conduct when I made a comment on Facebook accusing Councillor May of disseminating misinformation regarding the peer review of that draft plan.
(iii)I acknowledge that I should not have made that comment, and I now apologise to Councillor May for having done so.
Training
Within 4 months of the date of this order, Councillor Daniel Kingston shall undertake:
(i)the training course for elected members 'Effective Community Leadership' provided by the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) for a period of no less than 7.5 hours, attending either in person or via e-learning (if available); or
(ii)a training course with substantially similar learning outcomes provided by an alternative registered training organisation for a period of not less than 7.5 hours.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MR D AITKEN, SENIOR MEMBER
8 SEPTEMBER 2025