SHANNON and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL - [2025] WASAT 120

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA)
CITATION:   SHANNON and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2025] WASAT 120
MEMBER:   MR T CAREY, MEMBER
HEARD:   4 SEPTEMBER 2025
DELIVERED          :   31 OCTOBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CC 1266 of 2023
CC 1267 of 2023
CC 1292 of 2023
CC 1295 of 2023
CC 1297 of 2023

BETWEEN: KERI SHANNON
Applicant
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL
Respondent
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervenor

Catchwords:

Local government - Review of decisions of Local Government Standards Panel - Minor breaches - Rules of conduct - Local law as to conduct - Improper use of office - Causing detriment to a person - Reflecting adversely upon a decision - Offensive or insulting expressions

Legislation:

Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 (WA), reg 34D
Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA)
Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA) (repealed), reg 7(1)
Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 5.102A, s 5.103, s 5.105, s 5.106, s 5.125(1)
Local Government Legislation Amendment Act 2019 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 17, s 27, s 27(1), s 27(3), s 29(1), s 29(3), s 37(1)

Result:

Applications substantially unsuccessful
Decisions of the Local Government Standards Panel as to breach affirmed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Ms VA Bennett
Respondent	:	N/A
Intervenor	:	Mr Z Clifford

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Kennedys (Australasia) Partnership - Perth
Respondent	:	N/A
Intervenor	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Jacob and Local Government Standards Panel [2022] WASAT 66
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

Keri Shannon is a former councillor and mayor of the Town of Cambridge. During her mayorship, she was accused of nine minor breaches (as that term is used in s 5.103 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LG Act)) comprising contraventions of either the code of conduct of the Town or a local law in relation to the conduct of people at council meetings.
All nine complaints were referred to the Local Government Standards Panel (the Panel). The Panel found that Ms Shannon had committed a minor breach in respect of each complaint, and it sanctioned her in relation to eight of the nine complaints.
Ms Shannon applied to the Tribunal under s 5.125(1) of the LG Act for review of each of the Panel's decisions.
The Tribunal's mediation procedures were successful to the extent that consent orders were made disposing of four of the review applications. The remaining five are the subject of these reasons for decision.
For the reasons given below, I have decided to affirm each of the decisions under review. In relation to one - the subject of proceeding CC 1266 of 2023 - I have upheld the complaint in respect of one only of the two aspects which the Panel found Ms Shannon to have been in breach.
My reasons are ordered as follows:
(a)The Tribunal's jurisdiction and powers on review.
(b)The role of the Intervenor.
(c)The legal framework applying to the breach allegations.
(d)Description and background facts providing useful context for each alleged breach.
(e)My reasoning for determining for or against the existence of each alleged breach.
(f)Sanctions.

The Tribunal's jurisdiction

Ms Shannon's application falls within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction.[1] The Tribunal's review of the reviewable decision is by way of a hearing de novo and the objective of the review is for the Tribunal to arrive at the correct and preferable decision on the basis of the information and the evidence before the Tribunal at the time of the review: s 27 of the SAT Act. In the exercise of its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal is not limited in its consideration to the material that was before the original decision-maker: s 27(1) of the SAT Act, nor to the original decision-maker's reasoning: s 27(3) of the SAT Act.
[1] State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), s 17.
Section 29(1) of the SAT Act provides that all of the functions and discretions conferred on the original decision-maker are conferred on the Tribunal, in addition to the powers conferred on the Tribunal by the SAT Act. The Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the reviewable decision, and in the latter case, may substitute its own decision in place of the reviewable decision: s 29(3) of the SAT Act.

The Intervenor's role

As is the norm in matters of this kind, the Panel has taken no active role in the proceeding.[2] In these circumstances, the Attorney General of Western Australia (the interventor) intervened pursuant to s 37(1) of the SAT Act to allow there to be a contradictor.
[2] See R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13.

The applicable legal framework

None of what appears under this heading is the subject of any dispute between the parties.
Following significant amendments of the LG Act by the Local Government Legislation Amendment Act 2019 (WA) (LG Amendment Act), which came into effect on 3 February 2021, local government authorities are required to prepare and adopt a code of conduct to regulate the conduct of council members, committee members and candidates for election. The code of conduct adopted must incorporate the model code prescribed by the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA).
On 27 April 2021, the Town published a Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates (Town Code) in substantially the same terms as the model code.
Section 5.105 of the LG Act relevantly provides:

(1)A council member commits a minor breach if the council member-
(a)contravenes a rule of conduct; or
(b)contravenes a local law under this Act, contravention of which the regulations specify to be a minor breach[.]

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.

Contraventions of a rule of conduct

Section 5.102A of the LG Act defines 'rule of conduct' as a provision of a model code that is specified in the model code to be a rule of conduct. A council member who breaches a relevant clause of the model code commits a minor breach.
Two provisions of the Town Code specify rules of conduct of relevance to this matter:
•Clause 18, which states:
(1)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; and
…
•Clause 19, which states:
(1)A council member must not undertake a task that contributes to the administration of the local government unless authorised by the local government or the CEO to undertake that task;
(2)Subclause (1) does not apply to anything that a council member does as part of the deliberations at a council or committee meeting.
The following complaints against Ms Shannon, upheld by the Panel, concerned alleged rule of conduct breaches (for the sake of brevity, I adopt the descriptions provided by the Intervenor, noting that in some cases they are disputed by Ms Shannon):
(a)CC 1266 of 2023 - 'Blueprint for fairer planning' letter - found by the Panel to contravene cl 18 of the Town Code.
(b)CC 1292 of 2023 - 'Developers win the game at early meetings' letter - found by the Panel to contravene cl 18 of the Town Code.
(c)CC 1297 of 2023 - Commissioning of a planning report - found by the Panel to contravene cl 19 of the Town Code.

Contraventions of a local law

Regulation 34D of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 (WA) (LG Administration Regulations) provides:
(1)In this regulation —
local law as to conduct means a local law relating to the conduct of people at council or committee meetings.
(2)The contravention of a local law as to conduct is a minor breach for the purposes of section 5.105(1)(b) of the Act.
Clause 13.3 of the Town of Cambridge Meeting Procedures Local Law 2019 (Town Local Law) provides:
13.3Adverse reflection
(1)No Member of the council or a Committee is to reflect adversely upon a decision of the Council or Committee unless the Council or Committee has resolved to temporarily suspend this local law …
(2)No Member of the Council or a Committee is to use offensive or insulting expressions in reference to any Member, employee, or any other person.
There is no dispute that each sub-clause of cl 13.3 is a local law relating to the conduct of people at council meetings.
The following complaints against Ms Shannon upheld by the Panel concerned alleged breaches of cl 13.3 (I again have adopted the Intervenor's descriptions, both of which Ms Shannon disputes):
(a)CC 1267 of 2023 - Comments on council decision to approve development application - found by the Panel to contravene cl 13.3(1) of the Town Local Law.
(b)CC 1295 of 2023 - Calling councillors misogynists (two) - found by the Panel to contravene cl 13.3(2) of the Town Local Law.

The alleged breaches and relevant context

CC 1266/2023 - 'Blueprint for fairer planning' letter

On 21 August 2021, a letter appeared in the Subiaco Post newspaper (Post) in its letters to the editor section (published Blueprint letter).
The published Blueprint letter is headed 'Blueprint for fairer planning'. It bears as the author 'Keri Shannon, mayor, Town of Cambridge'.
A facsimile copy of the published Blueprint letter appears as Annexure A to these reasons.
At the date the published Blueprint letter was published, Mr Ian Everett (Cr Everett) was a councillor of the Town and worked as a town planner.
The Panel found, on the basis of the published Blueprint letter's contents, that Ms Shannon breached cl 18(1)(b) of the Town Code.
Ms Shannon's primary submission before me is that the published Blueprint letter was not the letter submitted by Ms Shannon for publication. Rather, it is said, the letter she submitted was so significantly and substantively altered by the Post, without Ms Shannon's input or permission, that it conveyed an entirely different meaning, implication and effect.
I am satisfied on the evidence that Ms Shannon submitted two letters to the Post prior to the publication of the published letter - the first on 18 August 2021 and the second on 19 August 2021. The second letter was shorter than the first and omitted most of a series of dot points appearing in the first letter introduced by '[o]ther possible planning reforms include': In her covering email to the Post attaching the second letter, Ms Shannon referred to her deletion of most of the bullet pointed suggestions, and her 'hope' that the second letter might replace her first. It is clear that the published letter retained much of the bulleted content (although not the form). That being so, I will direct my comments to a comparison of the published Blueprint letter with the first submitted letter (submitted letter).
The contents of the submitted letter appear in Annexure B.
Ms Shannon provided detailed factual information concerning events predating her sending the submitted letter to the Post. It includes:
•Her letter to the Post published on 21 May 2021 alluding to pre-application lodgement contact with the Town by developer; the potential for such contact to assist developers by, for example, the removal of issues that could detract from proposals ahead of lodgement; and the ongoing need for transparency and risk management.
•A letter by five councillors published by the Post on 24 July 2021 suggesting that the concerns raised by Ms Shannon about pre-lodgement contact had undermined confidence in the Town and its elected members.
•Ms Shannon's announcement at a council meeting on 27 July 2021 which denied that she had implied any misconduct by the Town's staff or any planner at the Town. The announcement was reported in an article in the Post on 7 August 2021, which recalled Ms Shannon's suggestion of greater transparency, particularly in the pre-lodgement phase of development applications.
•A letter by Cr Everitt to the Post published on 14 August 2021 contained a rebuttal of Ms Shannon's suggestion.

CC 1267/2023 - Comments on a council decision to approve a development application

On 27 July 2021, the council approved a development application for a dwelling at 81 Branksome Gardens, City Beach. Ms Shannon voted against the motion.
At an ordinary council meeting on 24 August 2021, Ms Shannon made an announcement regarding the development application. Her announcement contained the following comments:[3]
I have had a number of calls from ratepayers who believe the issue of prelodgment contact with staff is a real issue that needs to be addressed within the Town …
One call was from a neighbour to 81 Branksome Gardens who thanked me for raising concerns and said she was 76 years old and the neighbour on the other side was 96 years old … She said they relied on the Town's staff to raise concerns that may impact their amenity because they were too old to respond to complicated planning matters.
…
So because these homes were built in the 1960s when designs were modest and people didn't hire planners to come in and speak to staff and convince them that natural ground level is actually 1.6m above the road height, the new build is going to tower over their homes especially given an 8.6m wall height.
…
… And I look [sic] I understand that sometimes you have to pick a line in the sand but we picked the line in the sand about the calculation of natural ground level and this house went outside that and we basically agreed that Branksome Gardens is effectively 1.6 metres below natural ground level which makes it a tunnel. Anyway so I moved the houses around just to try and represent for us what actually happens as being the collateral damage when we decide to move natural ground level from the one that's actually existing and where people have built and spent all their money on homes and they live in those homes and they continue to reside in those homes and then a new house goes up and it gets 8.6 metre walls on top of a 1.6 metre higher natural ground level and it's not fair. But anyway ... so that poor neighbour ... are going to have to come up with some ... some money and we will all move on. But the collateral damage won't.
[3] Finding and Reasons for Finding delivered 16 November 2022, page 8.
The Panel found that in making the announcement, Ms Shannon breached cl 13.3(1) of the Town Local Law and, therefore, reg 34D of the LG Administration Regulations.
Although Ms Shannon sought to rely upon a number of background matters regarding what was at the time the controversial issue of natural ground level which impacted the outcome regarding 81 Branksome Gardens, including the impetus it provided for amendments of the relevant local planning policies, for reasons I will explain, I regard them as largely irrelevant to the questions I have to determine on this application.

CC 1292/2023 - 'Developers win the game at early meetings' letter

On 21 May 2021, the Post published a letter submitted to it by Ms Shannon (published Developers letter). The letter is headed 'Developers win the game at early meetings' and bears as the author 'Keri Shannon, mayor, Town of Cambridge'.
A facsimile copy of the published Developers letter appears as Annexure C to these reasons.
The Panel found, on the basis of the published Developers letter's contents, that Ms Shannon breached cl 18(1)(b) of the Town Code.
In her witness statement dated 2 April 2025 appearing in the hearing book (Exhibit 1), Ms Shannon gives the following background to the published Developers letter:[4]
[4] Exhibit 1, pages 60 - 61.
•In 2020 and 2021, there were what Ms Shannon described as 'contentious matters' before Council, one of which concerned a proposed daycare centre development known as Brookdale Daycare Centre.
•The areas of concern, according to Ms Shannon, were the proposed traffic management for the development was unsafe, and the records held by the Town of meetings between planners for the development and the Town and decisions made by the Town's staff about the development were inadequate.
•The Town engaged an external consultant to undertake a desktop review of the traffic study, which determined that the proposed development was unsafe. Based on the review, the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) rejected the development.
•The proponent appealed to this Tribunal, and the matter was resolved in mediation when the JDAP member negotiated an approval on the condition that a median traffic island near the development site would be closed.
•Ms Shannon reviewed the approval and informed the JDAP that the relevant condition was beyond the JDAP's powers and required use of a council delegation.
•Following ongoing discussions regarding the condition and closure of the traffic island, the condition was amended to provide for the developer to pay the Town the cost of the traffic island closure.
•Legal advice was sought and received by the council regarding a possible challenge to the JDAP decision.
•At a council meeting in April 2021, Ms Shannon moved a motion to defer the council's decision and for the Town to engage a traffic consultant to conduct a study on the intersection involved. Her motion was stymied by the passing of a competing motion to move to the next item of business.
•Ultimately, Ms Shannon introduced a motion in November 2021 for a record-based pre-lodgement contact policy 'so that the council and ratepayers had access to an adequate record'. The motion passed.
•Ms Shannon's written statement goes into great detail regarding 'the Mcclemans Road matter', which concerned a proposed scheme amendment (Scheme Amendment) rather than a development proposal. Suffice at this stage to say that Ms Shannon was wary of the extent of the contact with Town staff by proponents of the Scheme Amendment, and critical about the dearth of records of those contacts.

CC 1295/2023 - Calling other councillors misogynists

In the course of an ordinary council meeting on 24 May 2022, Ms Shannon spoke the following words:
Stop being a misogynist and stop talking over me.
Later in the same meeting, Ms Shannon spoke the following words:
I am sick and tired of the misogynists in this room.
The Panel found, in relation to the two occasions referred to, that Ms Shannon breached cl 13.3(2) of the Town Local Law and, therefore, reg 34D of the LG Administration Regulations.
Ms Shannon's statement of issues facts and contentions (SIFC) gives a detailed account of events preceding her two 'misogynist' comments. Those events include:
•Certain conduct of a councillor (Cr Bradley) at a council meeting on 26 April 2022 conducted on Zoom (during a COVID19 lockdown), described by Ms Shannon in terms of Cr Bradley 'becoming angry', banging the desk several times, shouting and flashing the lights in his room.
•Earlier in the same meeting, unbeknown to Ms Shannon at the time as her attention was directed to a PowerPoint slide, Cr Bradley took his device to the toilet, unzipped his trousers and 'went to the toilet'.
•On Ms Shannon's version, the new male CEO was 'not concerned' with Cr Bradley's behaviour and compromised the livestream video of the meeting to remove the footage of Cr Bradley going to the toilet, and was obstructive towards the implementation of council decisions. One such decision was to install better livestream cameras for council meetings, which was not actioned prior to the 24 May 2022 meeting despite a council decision in February 2022 to that effect.
•Ms Shannon also voiced her concerns regarding certain actions of the former male CEO to amend minutes of meetings on key matters so as to favour male councillors and himself.
•Ms Shannon's SIFC and witness statement provide the following information regarding what occurred at the 24 May 2022 meeting:
•On a motion, another councillor, Cr Mack, sought unsuccessfully to amend the minutes of an earlier special council meeting to add that he was absent due to a lack of adequate notice. He insisted on being entitled to put his amendment notice, despite Ms Shannon explaining to him the lack of a legal basis for reasons for a councillor's absence to be recorded in the minutes.
•Cr Bradley spoke in support of Cr Mack, suggesting rules had been used to manipulate the democratic process.
•Ms Shannon upheld a point of order that Cr Bradley's comments were irrelevant to the motion. Despite the conclusive nature of her ruling under the relevant local law, Cr Bradley disputed it.
•Ms Shannon's account of the exchange which followed, containing the two statements the subject of the Panel's adverse finding, is as follows:[5]
While I was speaking against the motion to amend the minutes, Cr Mack and Cr Bradley began shouting at and over the top of me, and Cr Bradley banged on the table. I said to Cr Bradley "you will stop talking over me". Cr Bradley shouted "no we won't - we will keep interrupting". I then said "you will stop being a misogynist and stop talking over me". Cr Haddon-Casey raised a point of order and asked Cr Bradley and Cr Mack to please keep your voices level so that we can debate properly. When I began to speak to the item again Cr Mack and Cr Bradley began shouting again and over the shouting I said "You are not going to debate me now, Cr Mack. I will stop this meeting. I am sick and tired of the misogynists in the room". At the same time, Cr Barlow, who was seated next to Cr Mack, raised her hand and asked me to please stop the meeting because she was finding it very upsetting. Following these comments, I stopped the meeting and had to leave the chamber.
•On 30 May 2022, Ms Shannon sent an email to all councillors, which she asked the CEO to circulate, in the following terms:[6]
Dear all I would like to apologise to Cr Mack and Cr Bradley for making a reference to misogynists in relation to their behaviour at the council meeting on 24 May 2022. I should have dealt with the behaviour, rather than name calling. It was not appropriate, and it is not the type of behaviour that I endorse or seek to justify. I would also like to apologise to the Town's staff as well as I regret the negative publicity this has attracted. I would ask the CEO to circulate this email to the Town's staff.

CC 1297/2023 - Commissioning of a planning report

[5] Exhibit 1, page 34.

[6] Applicant's SIFC dated 7 June 2024, para 59(i).

This complaint concerns the Town's deliberations of the Mcclemans Road matter.
Contrary to the recommendation of the Town's administration, the council resolved to refuse to adopt the Scheme Amendment. For reasons to be canvassed, Ms Shannon engaged a private planning consultant, Ken Adam, to provide reasons for the refusal, upon which the council subsequently relied.
The Panel found that in so doing, Ms Shannon breached cl 19(1) of the Town Code.
The following facts are either agreed, or based upon Ms Shannon's evidence which I accept:
•The Scheme Amendment sought to rezone land from green open space to residential.
•On 24 August 2021, the council resolved to request the preparation of a report relating the Scheme Amendment.
•At a meeting of council on 22 February 2022, a majority of council was opposed to the Scheme Amendment. The council resolved to defer its decision to 25 February 2022 'so that adequate reasons can be prepared'.
•On 23 February 2022, Ms Shannon emailed the Director of Planning, Mr Cammell, and asked him to advise when he anticipated being in a position to circulate proposed reasons for refusal.
•The same day, Mr Cammell responded by an email attaching a draft resolution expressed in terms of 'not adopting' the amendment and reasons for departing from the administration recommendation. The body of the email said:[7]
I propose that I circulate this to Elected Members to see if I can find someone to provide advice in the meantime. How does that sound?
•Ms Shannon considered that the proposed reasons were inadequate given the size of the report recommending adoption of the scheme amendment and their treatment of the planning issues.
•Ms Shannon replied to Mr Cammell's suggestion regarding an approach to someone to provide advice by asking who he intended to approach.
•At about 4.00 pm on 23 February 2022, Mr Cammell rang Ms Shannon to inform her that he was unable to find a consultant to assist with the proposed reasons and said that he believed Ms Shannon would be able to finalise the draft reasons with the other councillors.
•Ms Shannon remained concerned, particularly in light of the lack of anyone with planning expertise on the council. She spoke with four of the councillors, all of whom agreed with her on the need to engage an external planner to draft amended reasons.
•Later, on 23 September 2022, Ms Shannon telephoned Mr Adam to ask if he would accept instructions to prepare the required reasons. Subsequently, she sent an email to Mr Adam requesting that he prepare reasons to be used in the council's refusal to adopt the Scheme Amendment.
•On 25 February 2022, the council resolved not to adopt the Scheme Amendment. The reasons prepared by Mr Adam were stated as the council's reasons for not accepting the Town administration's recommendation.
[7] Applicant's SIFC dated 7 June 2024, para 62(a)(ii).

My reasoning

CC 1266/2023 - 'Blueprint for fairer planning' letter

I commence with some general observations as to what the Panel, and the Tribunal on review, must be satisfied about in order for a breach of cl 18 of the Town Code to be established.
There are four requirements:
(1)The person must have been a council member.
(2)The person must have made use of their office.
(3)The use of the office must have been improper.
(4)The use of the office must have been to either gain an advantage for a person or to cause detriment to a person.
Treby and Local Government Standards Panel [2010] WASAT 81 (Treby) remains the leading case in the Tribunal to assist with the proper construction of, in particular, the third and fourth requirements. There, Pritchard DP (as she then was) was concerned with reg 7(1) of the now repealed Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA), the predecessor of cl 18(1) of the model code in almost identical terms.
In Treby the following guidance is given regarding the meaning of improper:
•The ordinary meaning of improper includes 'unsuitable' and 'inappropriate'. The word will take its flavour from the surrounding context including the role of the councillor or mayor (as the case may be).[8]
•Impropriety is 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.[9]
•Impropriety is to be judged objectively. It does not depend on the councillor's consciousness of impropriety.[10]
•Impropriety may consist of an abuse of power, that is, if a councillor uses his or her position in a way that is inconsistent with the discharge of the duties arising from that office or employment; or from the doing of an act which a councillor knows or ought to know that he has no authority to do.[11]
•In the case of impropriety arising from an abuse of power, a councillor's alleged knowledge or means of knowledge of the circumstances in which the power is exercised and his purpose or intention in exercising the power will be important factors in determining whether the power has been abused.[12]
•A councillor's use of office can be improper even though it is for the purpose or with the intention of benefiting the council.[13]
[8] Treby at [27].
[9] Treby at [29].
[10] Treby at [30].
[11] Treby at [31].
[12] Treby at [32].
[13] Treby at [33].
Pritchard DP in Treby gave the following indicia of the surrounding context in the matter before her Honour:
(a)the role of councillor includes representing the interests of electors, ratepayers and residents of the district, providing leadership and guidance to the community in the district, and participating in the council's decision-making processes at council meetings; and
(b)the role of mayor includes presiding at meetings in accordance with the LG Act, providing leadership and guidance to the community in the district, and speaking on behalf of the local government.[14]
[14] Treby at [27].
In reference to remarks questioning the intelligence and integrity of other councillors by the applicants the subject of the complaints in Treby, Pritchard DP observed that there was considerable force in the submissions of counsel for the intervenor that the reputation of the local government authority involved was itself liable to be damaged by virtue of the remarks.[15]
[15] Treby at [79].
The complaints of breach of cl 18 in this case alleged causing detriment and not gaining an advantage. Treby provides the following guidance on the question of detriment:
•The ordinary meaning of detriment is loss or damage done or caused to, or sustained by, any person or thing. 'Damage' means 'loss or detriment to one's property, reputation etc' and 'harm done to a thing or person'.[16]
•A contravention of the then reg 7(1)(b) was not dependant on actual detriment being suffered by a person.[17]
•It must be established that the councillor believed that the result of their conduct would be that the other person would suffer detriment or that the councillor's conduct was done with reckless indifference that detriment was a probable or likely consequence of their conduct.[18]
•The desirability of public scrutiny and accountability does not create a right to engage in derogatory personal attacks on elected office holders.[19]
•A person will suffer detriment if remarks are made which diminish their reputations or cause others to think less favourably of them.[20]
[16] Treby at [94] - [95].
[17] Treby at [96].
[18] Treby at [96].
[19] Treby at [101].
[20] Treby at [106].
It will be recalled that Ms Shannon denies liability on the basis of the differences between the published Blueprint letter and the submitted letter. The outline of submissions filed on her behalf goes so far as to suggest that the lack of complaint with respect to the submitted letter determined that neither the Panel nor the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the published Blueprint letter. This, it is submitted, follows from the Panel's authority under s 5.110(2)(a) of the LG Act to make a finding as to whether a breach alleged in the complaint occurred.
It will often be the case that a letter submitted by an individual to a newspaper for publication is not reproduced in precisely the form submitted. Ms Shannon accepts this in relation to the 'Developers win the game at early meetings' letter.[21] It cannot be the situation that any variation, no matter how minor and insignificant, results in the author's immunity from complaint under the LG Act based merely upon the differences between the submitted and published letters.
[21] Statement of Keri Shannon, para 56 where Ms Shannon acknowledged the Post having made grammatical and incidental change, including assigning the title of mayor.
However, and it is clear that Ms Shannon is contending that the subject of the current complaint is one, there might be cases where a published letter is so different from the one submitted that criticisms going to questions of compliance with the model code can quite properly be opposed on the ground that they are inapplicable to the letter of which the accused person was the author.
A comparison of the published Blueprint letter with the submitted letter is required in order to determine the extent, if any, to which any criticism contained in the complaint is to be attached to the latter. If, despite the variations in the course of publication, a criticised portion can be fairly attributed to the original author, then in my view, the Panel did, and this Tribunal does, have jurisdiction to deal with it.
Before proceeding with such a comparison, I reproduce parts of the Panel's reasons for finding that Ms Shannon breached of cl 18(1)(b) of the Town Code:[22]
[22] Finding and Reasons for Finding delivered 27 October 2022.
Whether Mayor Shannon acted improperly …
73.Based on the evidence before it, the Panel is satisfied that the fourth element has been established and that Mayor Shannon acted improperly when she sent the Letter to the Post:
…
c.Mayor Shannon's Initial Statements in the Letter were as follows:
"I do not share councillor Ian Everett's views about planning processes. (real vulnerability at Cambridge, Letters August 14)."
"Mr Everett is an owner of a town planning firm and has a different view of the industry."
"I seek only to represent the interests of ratepayers .... "
d.Mayor Shannon singled Mr Everett out when she had stated:
"Mr Everett is an owner of a town planning firm and has a different view of the industry."
A reasonable reader would infer from the Initial Statements that Mayor Shannon was suggesting that Mr Everett's views on the Town's planning processes were significantly influenced by his occupation as the "owner of a town planning firm" and were in conflict with his role as a councillor who was elected to "represent the interests of ratepayers".
e.The Panel finds that in making the Initial Statements, Mayor Shannon had failed to act with reasonable care and her comments lacked integrity. She had also suggested that one of the Town's serving councillors (Mr Everett) was compromised in his duties which could have easily caused damage to not only his, but also the Town's reputation.
f.In the second last paragraph of the Letter, Mayor Shannon had made the Closing Statement:
''The inherent conflict of interest that occurs when individuals with personal interests in the development industry such as real estate agents, architects, planners and developers should be recognised by excluding them from eligibility as elected members".
g.Mayor Shannon stated in no uncertain terms that Mr Everett (as a person who had a personal interest in the development industry) had an "inherent conflict of interest" and should be excluded from eligibility as an elected member. That statement directly related to Mr Everett, who at the time was an elected member and whose occupation was a town planner.
h.The imputation that Mr Everett should not be allowed to represent the Town, was highly improper. Mayor Shannon clearly disparaged Mr Everett's character by suggesting that he was not able to properly carry out/perform his official public duties.
i.Mayor Shannon suggested that a significant part of Mr Everett's agenda was to represent his private clients, which meant he was not able act in the best interests of the Town's ratepayers/residents.
Whether Mayor Shannon intended to cause detriment to the local government or any other person:
74.The Panel is satisfied that Mayor Shannon intended to cause detriment to the Complainant when she sent the Letter to the Post newspaper:
a.Rather than keep the piece as one of general interest, Mayor Shannon directly targeted Mr Everett when she stated in no uncertain terms that those with a personal interest in the development industry, including planners (such as Mr Everett), had an "inherent conflict of interest" and should be excluded from eligibility as an elected member.
b.In the letter, Mayor Shannon suggested that Mr Everett was not able to properly fulfil his duties as an elected member. Those were damaging statements both in terms of his standing as a serving elected member at the time the Letter was published; and as he was eligible for renomination in the Election, therefore, people would have been considering various candidates and their qualities in that light.
…
The 'initial statements' referred to by the Panel at paragraph 73(c) are largely identical to statements made in the first two paragraphs of the submitted letter, except that the following sentence between the second and third sentences in the first paragraph is omitted:
As ratepayers invest in the Town, they deserve an assurance that any development application will be treated in a consistent and procedurally fair manner that protects their amenity.
In my view, the omitted sentence has no impact on the strength of the inferences the Panel found a reasonable reader would draw from the published Blueprint letter which appear at paragraph 73(d) of the Panel's reasons. If anything, it tends to reinforce the theme that Ms Shannon protects ratepayers' right to a planning process which is fair for all, in contrast to Cr Everett.
I make the following comments in relation to the four requirements for a breach of cl 18 of the Town Code:
(1)Ms Shannon was a council member at the relevant time.
(2)Although in neither the submitted letter nor the covering email did Ms Shannon refer to her position as mayor, and this was added by the Post, she did not rely on this; she contended that the letter the subject of complaint was not her letter at all. And she accepted, in the case of the 'Developers win the game at early meetings' letter, that she was acting in the capacity of mayor in submitting it to the Post. I am satisfied that she emailed the submitted letter to the Post in her capacity as mayor.
(3)I concur with the Panel's finding that a reasonable reader would infer from that part of the submitted letter containing the initial statements identified by the Panel that Cr Everett's views on the Town's planning processes were significantly influenced by his occupation as a planner and were in conflict with his role as a councillor who was elected to represent the interests of ratepayers. The submitted letter is silent as to the possibility that the posited conflict of interest is being managed by Cr Everett in some way, or that it is capable of such management. The suggestion, later in the submitted letter, of possible reform by way of excluding planners and others from the ranks of elected members may be indicative of a perceived incompatibility between the roles, and I will deal with whether this amounts to a further breach involving Cr Everett shortly. Regardless, the fact that the submitted letter fails to address the possibility that such conflict of interest as existed might be capable of management, in circumstances where Cr Everett was validly elected and entitled to be treated with the same respect as any other councillor, leads me to conclude that a reasonable person possessing the knowledge of the duties, powers and authority of Ms Shannon's position would have considered it inappropriate for her to submit for publication the initial statements in the terms of the submitted letter.
(4)The implication of the conflict in Cr Everett's duty to ratepayers arising from his occupation as planner necessarily leads to the consequence, in my view, that his reputation as a councillor is diminished. It is difficult to see how such an outcome could not have been foreseen. Taking Ms Shannon's protestations that this was not her intention at face value, she must have been aware of such a possibility when she submitted the letter. In those circumstances, if they applied, she was recklessly indifferent to the detriment to Cr Everett's reputation that publication would cause.
For the above reasons, I find that it is more likely that a breach of cl 18(1) occurred than it did not occur based upon the initial statements.
The Panel also considered the 'closing statement' referred to in paragraph 73(f) of the Panel's reasons amounted to a statement 'in no uncertain terms' that Cr Everett had an inherent conflict of interest and should be excluded from eligibility as an elected member. It found that the imputation Mr Everett should not be allowed to represent the Town was highly improper.
In this instance, I am of the opinion that the changes wrought by the Post to the submitted letter did have the result that the imputation in the published Blueprint letter is not present in the submitted letter, and as such, Ms Shannon cannot be answerable for it.
The published Blueprint letter contains, in unconditional terms, an assertion that people with personal interests in the 'development industry' who have an 'inherent conflict of interest' should be excluded from eligibility as elected members. In its published form, despite a reference two paragraphs previously to 'possible planning reforms', the 'inherent conflict of interest' reference immediately switches the reasonable reader's attention to the initial statements concerning Cr Everett. Further, as expressed in the published Blueprint letter, it is a stand-alone, unconditional assertion: planners (amongst others in the development industry) should be excluded due to their inherent conflict of interest.
When put as one of a number of 'possible planning reforms' in the submitted letter following the 'state government is consulting' reference, the 'inherent conflict of interest' statement assumes a more general focus, decoupled from Cr Everett. It does speak of the conflict of interest needing to be 'recognise(d)', and the proposal advanced was by exclusion from election, but when put as a general proposition as it was in the submitted letter, this does not amount to a comment about any particular person. I disagree with the Panel's identification of the closing statement with Cr Everett.
I find that it is not more likely that a breach of cl 18(1) occurred based upon the closing statement than it did not occur.

CC 1267/2023 - Comments on a council decision to approve a development application

This complaint alleges that Ms Shannon breached cl 13.3 of the Town Local Law preventing a member of council from reflecting adversely upon a decision of the council in the absence of a suspension resolution by the council. No such resolution applies.
'Reflecting adversely' is an expression in common usage which involves giving a negative response or finding fault. To 'find fault' is one of the definitions in the Macquarie Dictionary Online for 'criticise'. As such, reflecting adversely and criticising (used in the negative sense) can be regarded as synonymous.

It is important to note that cl 13.3 is concerned with adverse reflections on decisions of (relevantly) council, not people. The Tribunal authority relied upon in Ms Shannon's written submissions[23] was concerned with a contravention of a then local law proscribing a member reflecting adversely on the character or actions of another member of employee. I found it of only limited use in my consideration of the current complaint.
[23] Jacob and Local Government Standards Panel [2022] WASAT 66.
Further, in her written submissions, Ms Shannon distinguishes between the correctness of the decision on the one hand, and the impact of the decision, both on neighbouring properties and the Council's future decision-making, on the other. She submits that she did not attempt to argue that the decision was wrong, but that its consequences were problematic. Indeed, according to Ms Shannon, her concerns were later acted upon by the council when it amended its own policy.
There is, in my view, no basis for reading down cl 13.3 of the Town Local Law so as to limit its operation to reflections that a council decision was wrong. A suggestion that a decision is wrong would no doubt be an adverse reflection of the decision. So is criticism of a negative nature concerning the impacts flowing from a decision.
The references in Ms Shannon's announcement at the meeting on 24 August 2021 to: 'the new build is going to tower over their homes especially given an 8.6m wall height', 'we basically agreed that Branksome Gardens is effectively 1.6 metres below natural ground level which makes it a tunnel' and '… so that poor neighbour ... are going to have to come up with some … some money and we will all move on. But the collateral damage won't' - are all negatively critical of the impacts of the council's decision. They are all adverse reflections.
In my view, the correct construction of the clause alleged to have been breached, and the contravening quality of the parts of Ms Shannon's announcement complained about, are so clear that the various matters urged on her behalf to explain or justify her behaviour are irrelevant to determining whether a breach has occurred.
For the above reasons, I find that it is more likely that a breach of cl 13.3 occurred than it did not occur.

CC 1292/2023 - 'Developers win the game at early meetings' letter

I reproduce parts of the Panel's reasons for finding that Ms Shannon breached cl 18(1)(b) of the Town Code:
Whether Mayor Shannon acted improperly …
41.Based on the evidence before it, the Panel is satisfied that the fourth element has been established and that Mayor Shannon acted improperly when she sent the Letter to the Post:
a.Mayor Shannon's Letter related to planning matters and the issue of "prelodgement" meetings between members of the development industry (and associated consultants) and local government staff. She referred to the lack of transparency concerning such meetings and was openly critical of the overall process. She discussed the practise of "lobbying" local government staff by developers, that allegedly took place prior to decisions being made by local governments. She also referred to a New South Wales ICAC matter and put forward her ideas on how to fix any issues and to "enhance transparency".
b.Rather than keep the piece as one of general interest, Mayor Shannon directly aimed her criticism relating to the alleged deficiencies and serious issues with the planning process, at the Town and in particular its staff.
c.Mayor Shannon made the following statements in the Letter:
"Often the result is largely assured because developers have obtained concessions or the exercise of discretion to remove issues that would detract from their planning proposal ahead of lodgement."
"Fortview residents should know that Christ Church Grammar School's planners have had a number of courtesy meetings with Town of Cambridge staff".
d.Local government staff are employed to objectively advise Council members on matters under discussion and ensure that information is available to the Council to guide its decisions. However, a reasonable reader would infer from the above statements that recommendations by the Town's staff to Council on planning matters, had either been largely predetermined and/or significantly influenced by the pre-lodgement meetings with developers.
e.Mayor Shannon clearly implied that the Town's staff had been compromised in their positions and had failed to exercise impartial and independent judgement when considering planning matters.
f.In relation to the first local planning matter that Mayor Shannon referred to in the Letter, she had suggested that residents had not been given "complete transparency in relation to the materials provided." That implied a failing on the part of the Town's staff to act properly and to help promote and support open and transparent government. She alleged that those failings had led to "unexpected outcomes" which were due to the community being advised about a development "only when it is too late". Mayor Shannon strongly implied that aspects of the Town's planning processes were somewhat illegitimate and underhanded.
g.With regard to the second local planning matter, Mayor Shannon categorically stated that a number of concessions had been granted by the Town's staff prior to a decision being made:
"The suggested use of the infrastructure delegation to extend the median island was only one small part of the concessions that contributed to this joint development assessment panel (JDAP) decision".
h.In the Letter Mayor Shannon also accused staff of not ensuring that the Town's records and documents had been properly kept:
"Unfortunately the Town has no record to explain why the former infrastructure officer accepted the traffic statement which did not meet the WA Planning guidelines for day care centres."
…
Whether Mayor Shannon intended to cause detriment to the local government or any other person:
42.The Panel is satisfied that Mayor Shannon intended to cause detriment to the Town and its staff when she sent the Letter to the Post newspaper:
a.As already stated, rather than keep the piece as one of general interest, Mayor Shannon directly discussed two of the Town's planning matters as she levelled serious criticism towards the Town's staff and its planning processes.
b.She clearly implied that the Town's staff were responsible for a lack of transparency and for wrong decisions ultimately being made. There could have been no doubt when she wrote the Letter that she had acted in a manner to undermine previous planning decisions of the Council and further create doubt and uneasiness within the community with regard to current and future matters.
c.In the letter, Mayor Shannon suggested that planning staff had not fulfilled their duties/roles properly. Those were damaging statements and undermined their ability to carry out their jobs properly. Her comments would have inevitably led to mistrust of the Town's staff by the community.
…
I make the following comments in relation to the four requirements for a breach of cl 18 of the Town Code:
(1)Ms Shannon was a council member at the relevant time.
(2)Ms Shannon accepts that she acted in the capacity of mayor in submitting her letter to the Post which it published as the published Developers letter.
(3)Counsel for the Intervenor summarised the interpretation of the published Developers letter it urged me to accept in the following terms:[24]
… Ultimately, the letter objectively implies that developers were using behind the scenes meetings with Town staff to gain favourable outcomes to the detriment of the community and that council staff had been acting improperly or had engaged in wrongful conduct.
It was also submitted that the reasons of the Panel appearing at paragraphs 41 - 42 were cogent and compelling.
I agree with Ms Shannon that a focus of the published Blueprint letter is how to improve current processes in local government planning matters, but not that it is the only focus, given that the majority of its contents deals with either general or specific causes of complaint.
Although I cannot accept the Intervenor's assertion in its SIFC that 'the Applicant claimed, both implicitly and explicitly, that the Town's staff were both corrupt and incompetent' - the letter contained no such explicit claim, and, in my view, it mischaracterises any reasonable inference to be drawn - I do accept the Panel's finding of the inference adverse to the Town's staff at paragraph 41(e) of its reasons: that staff had been compromised in their positions and had failed to exercise impartial and independent judgment when considering planning matters. It is not difficult to envisage the damage Ms Shannon's comments might cause to the reputation of the staff itself and the Town as a whole. This is sufficient, in my view, to conclude that Ms Shannon acted improperly in submitting the Developers letter for publication.
(4)I note Ms Shannon's claimed motivation in sending the letter to the Post that she wished to bring issues around developer and planner pre-lodgement contact with Town staff to the attention of ratepayers and residents in the interests of increased transparency. Having found her sending the letter published as the published Developers letter to the Post improper, I consider that Ms Shannon must have been aware of the possibility that the letter would cause detriment to the Town staff's reputation, both as a collective and individually. Her decision to submit it renders her, at least, recklessly indifferent to such an outcome.
[24] Intervenor's Submissions dated 11 August 2025, para 47.
For the above reasons, I find that it is more likely that a breach of cl 18(1) occurred than it did not occur.

CC 1295/2023 - Calling other councillors misogynists

The relevant local law prohibits council members from using offensive or insulting expressions in reference to other council members.
Ms Shannon admits making the two 'misogynist' references the subject of the complaint. She relies upon a series of events both in the days and weeks preceding the meeting when she made the comments and during the meeting itself, largely as extenuating circumstances. Her written outline of submissions suggest that they go some way to explaining, and justifying, the comments.
I struggle to see how the context in which the 'misogynist' comments were made, whether or not that context is an extenuating factor, assists in an assessment of whether a breach occurred. It may be relevant to sanction.
Ms Shannon contends that her use of the word 'misogynist' did not contravene cl 13.3(2) of the Town Local Law for two reasons:
(1)In neither instance did she call a particular councillor a misogynist.
(2)The word used was not 'offensive' or 'insulting'.
I will deal with each reason in turn.

First reason

Ms Shannon's outline of submissions asserts that the first use of the word, 'directed to Cr Bradley - to stop being a misogynist and stop talking over me' was as an adjective, not a noun. Pausing there, the stated assertion would, I think, surprise anyone with a background in English linguistics - 'misogynist', preceded by an indefinite article, is a noun.
A truer representation of the argument being advanced appears from the outline of submissions next sentence:[25]
Ms Shannon did not call Cr Bradley a misogynist, or imply that he was one; she asked him to stop behaving like a misogynist.
[25] Applicant's outline of submissions filed 21 August 2025, para 67.
Had the words actually used been accurately reflected in this sentence, the first reason would likely have been vindicated. However, Ms Shannon did not ask Cr Bradley to stop 'behaving like' a misogynist; she asked him to 'stop being' a misogynist. Her admonition clearly ascribes to Cr Bradley the characteristic of being a misogynist.
Although, in her outline of submissions, Ms Shannon's second use of 'misogynist' was said to have not been directed to any individual or group of individuals, in cross examination, Ms Shannon agreed that Cr Bradley and Cr Mack were its intended targets. A statement which includes 'the misogynists in the room' is a clear and unequivocal attribution of misogyny.
I am therefore unable to accept the first reason.

Second reason

Ms Shannon submits that neither use of the word fell within dictionary definitions of 'offensive' and 'insulting'. Those definitions refer, among other things, to 'causing offence or displeasure', 'to treat insolently or with contemptuous rudeness' and 'affront'.
'Affront' is defined as 'an intentional slight' which in my view accurately describes both of Ms Shannon's uses of 'misogynist'.
Apart from the points she has raised, which I have dealt with, concerning her use of the word directed to Cr Bradley and 'an unidentified group of people', and her suggestion, which I find to be contrary to the facts, that she did not resort to personal insults, the gravamen of her submission supporting the second reason reverts to circumstances of extenuation:[26]
… The phrases used were reactive responses from a woman who was trying to control the coordinated and objectively unruly, unprofessional and intimidating behaviour of male councillors, against a background of poor behaviour by male councillors and a lack of assistance from staff members, who appeared to Ms Shannon to be deliberately joining forces to undermine her management of the meeting procedures.
[26] Applicant's outline of submissions filed 21 August 2025, para 71.
A proper construction of the relevant Town Local Law does not permit me to consider any such circumstances in determining the question of breach of the local law.
I am unable to accept the second reason.
I find that it is more likely that a breach of cl 13.3 of the Town Local Law occurred than it did not occur in relation to both of Ms Shannon's uses of the word 'misogynist'.

CC 1297/2023 - Commissioning of a planning report

This complaint concerns where the demarcation line lies between members of council, on one hand, and the Chief Executive Officer and administration staff, on the other.
At the time of the relevant events (early 2022), s 5.41 of the LG Act as it then was set out the Chief Executive Officer's functions as follows:
The CEO's functions are to —
(a)advise the council in relation to the functions of a local government under this Act and other written laws;
(b)ensure that advice and information is available to the council so that informed decisions can be made;
(c)cause council decisions to be implemented;
(d)manage the day to day operations of the local government;
(e)liaise with the mayor or president on the local government's affairs and the performance of the local government's functions;
(f)speak on behalf of the local government if the mayor or president agrees;
(g)be responsible for the employment, management supervision, direction and dismissal of other employees (subject to section 5.37(2) in relation to senior employees);
(h)ensure that records and documents of the local government are properly kept for the purposes of this Act and any other written law; and
(i)perform any other function specified or delegated by the local government or imposed under this Act or any other written law as a function to be performed by the CEO.
In the context summarised in the earlier section of these reasons where I set out some background facts pertaining to this complaint, what must be borne in mind is that the complaint is not that the assistance of the town planner, Mr Adam, was obtained for the purpose of preparing a robust set of reasons supporting the decision to refuse to adopt the Scheme Amendment contrary to the administration's recommendation. Rather, it is that Ms Shannon procured the assistance, and in so doing, she undertook a task that contributes to the administration of the local government.
On the face of it, what Ms Shannon did fits comfortably within the Chief Executive Officer's function contained in the former s 5.41 of the LG Act to 'ensure that advice and information is available to the council so that informed decisions can be made'.
I do not accept Ms Shannon's submission that she was entitled to do as she did, based upon the duty of the mayor to cause minutes to be kept of council meetings, and the requirement for written reasons for any decision that is significantly different from the written recommendation of a committee or employee of the local government. Despite the decision taken on the informal vote of a majority of the councillors that external advice was required, it remained the task of the CEO to procure the advice necessary to facilitate the final decision comprising the resolution not to adopt the Scheme Amendment.
In the alternative, Ms Shannon contends that articulating the council's reasons for its decision was part of the deliberations at a council meeting and therefore excluded from the operation of cl 19(1) of the Town Code by cl 19(2). In my view, this once again confuses the input of Mr Adam with the (administrative) task of engaging Mr Adam's services.
Ms Shannon refers to the 'position of conflict' in which the administrative staff found itself. Given that a majority of council members was opposed to adopting the administration's recommendation, and that a resolution not to adopt the Scheme Amendment was imminent, the CEO's function to cause council decisions to be implemented provided a further suitable basis for the Town's staff to procure the necessary advice, regardless of its previously adopted position.
I refer to the question of authorisation. Under cl 19 of the Town Code, an exception to the prohibition of council members undertaking administrative tasks arises where it is authorised by the local government or the CEO.
There was no authorisation by the CEO. Mr Cammell suggested that Ms Shannon and her co-councillors should settle the reasons; he did not authorise her to engage Mr Adam.
Ms Shannon relies upon a consensus arrived at in informal discussions she had with four other councillors as to the need to engage an external planner. This falls short of the requirements for a decision of the Council, by way of a resolution passed at a council meeting.
Finally, the retrospective ratification by council of Mr Adam's engagement by Ms Shannon is incapable of disturbing findings that the elements of the complaint were established as and when they occurred.
For the above reasons, I find that it is more likely that a breach of cl 19(1) occurred than it did not occur.

Sanctions

The appropriate sanction for each of the breaches found by the Panel and affirmed by me was not the subject of submissions at the hearing, as the parties were content for penalty to be considered once my findings were made known.
I will direct the parties to file written submissions regarding the sanctions they consider to be appropriate.

Orders

CC 1266 of 2023

The Tribunal orders:
1.The decision of the Local Government Standards Panel dated 27 October 2022 that the applicant committed a minor breach of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) by contravening reg 18(1)(b) of the LocalGovernment (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA) is affirmed.
2.By 21 November 2025, the parties shall file (lodge) with the Tribunal and give to the other party written submissions regarding an appropriate sanction.

CC 1267 of 2023

The Tribunal orders:
1.The decision of the Local Government Standards Panel dated 27 October 2022 that the applicant committed a minor breach of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) by contravening clause 13.3(1) of the Town of Cambridge Meeting Procedures Local Law 2019 is affirmed.
2.By 21 November 2025, the parties shall file (lodge) with the Tribunal and give to the other party written submissions regarding an appropriate sanction.

CC 1292 of 2023

The Tribunal orders:
1.The decision of the Local Government Standards Panel dated 1 December 2022 that the applicant committed a minor breach of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) by contravening reg 18(1)(b) of the LocalGovernment (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA) is affirmed.
2.By 21 November 2025, the parties shall file (lodge) with the Tribunal and give to the other party written submissions regarding an appropriate sanction.

CC 1295 of 2023

The Tribunal orders:
1.The decision of the Local Government Standards Panel dated 15 November 2022 that the applicant committed a minor breach of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) by contravening clause 13.3(2) of the Town of Cambridge Meeting Procedures Local Law 2019 is affirmed.
2.By 21 November 2025, the parties shall file (lodge) with the Tribunal and give to the other party written submissions regarding an appropriate sanction.

CC 1297 of 2023

The Tribunal orders:
1.The decision of the Local Government Standards Panel dated 11 November 2022 that the applicant committed a minor breach of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) by contravening reg 19(1) of the LocalGovernment (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA) is affirmed.
2.By 21 November 2025, the parties shall file (lodge) with the Tribunal and give to the other party written submissions regarding an appropriate sanction.

ANNEXURE A

ANNEXURE B

ANNEXURE C

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MR T Carey, MEMBER
31 OCTOBER 2025