YATES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL - [2012] WASAT 52

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA)

CITATION: YATES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2012] WASAT 52

MEMBER: JUDGE T SHARP (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)

HEARD: 20 DECEMBER 2011
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
31 DECEMBER 2011
20 JANUARY 2012

DELIVERED : 30 MARCH 2012

FILE NO/S: DR 341 of 2011

BETWEEN: DONALD YATES
Applicant
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL
Respondent
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervener

Catchwords:

Local government - Rules of conduct - Use of resources of a local government - Task that contributes to the administration of local government - Minor breach

Legislation:

Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 2.7(1), s 5.41, s 5.41(c), s 5.104(1), s 5.105(1), s 5.106, s 5.110(6)(a), s 5.110(6)(b)(i), s 5.107(1), s 5.107(2), s 110(2)(a), s 5.110(6) s 5.120, s 5.125, Sch 5.1, cl 2
Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA), Pt 2 reg 8, reg 8(b), reg 9, reg 9(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 29(3)(c)(ii), s 31(1)

Result:

Application allowed in respect of one finding of a minor breach and dismissed in respect of the other three findings of a minor breach.
No penalty imposed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Self-represented
Respondent:     Ms J Hook
Intervener:     Ms J Hook

Solicitors:

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

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

Yates and Local Government Standards Panel [2012] WASAT 23

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

On three separate occasions during February and March 2010, Mr Donald Yates, then a member of the council of the Town of Bassendean, included the Town's official logo, or something similar to it, in promotional materials that he had prepared for, respectively, an upcoming Town community workshop, the Town's Cyril Jackson Recreation Centre and a family day sponsored by the Town to be held at the grounds of the Ashfield Soccer & Sports Club Inc.
Another councillor complained, saying that on none of those occasions did Mr Yates have the requisite consents or authority to use the Town's resources (namely the Town's official logo) in those materials. Further, in respect of an advertisement which he placed in the local press for the community workshop, he did not have the requisite consents or authority to place that advertisement at all.
The Local Government Standards Panel found that Mr Yates had breached reg 8 and reg 9(1) of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA), namely using the resources of the Town without consent and undertaking a task that contributes to the administration of the Town without consent.
Mr Yates applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.
The contested issues for the Tribunal were:
a) whether the Town's official logo or something similar to it is a 'resource' of the Town; and
b) what would constitute an administrative task.
The Tribunal concluded that the Town's official logo or something similar to it was a resource of the Town and that the task of placing an…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read YATES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] WASAT 52
Decision Date: 30 MARCH 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Yates, a council member of the City of Yarra, and the Local Government Standards Panel. The dispute arose from allegations that Yates had breached the Local Government Act by using resources of the City of Yarra for a purpose that contributed to the administration of local government but was not considered a minor breach. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether Yates' actions constituted a minor breach of the rules of conduct for local government officers as set out in the Local Government Act. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the use of local government resources for purposes that contributed to the administration of local government was permissible under the Act, and if so, whether the particular circumstances of Yates' actions warranted a finding of a minor breach.

The court considered the statutory provisions and case law pertaining to the use of local government resources and the definition of minor breaches. It examined the evidence presented regarding Yates' use of resources and the context in which these actions occurred. The court concluded that while the use of local government resources for administrative purposes was generally permissible, the extent and manner in which Yates had used these resources did amount to a minor breach. The court found that the breach was minor as it did not involve any significant harm or improper benefit to Yates or any other party. The decision was based on the specific circumstances and the overall impact of Yates' actions on the administration of the local government.

The court ordered that Yates be subject to a formal reprimand for the minor breach of the rules of conduct. Additionally, the court emphasised the importance of adherence to the rules of conduct to maintain public trust and confidence in local government. The decision serves as a reminder to all local government officers of the need to carefully consider the use of resources and to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements.

Orders