YATES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL - [2012] WASAT 23

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA)

CITATION: YATES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2012] WASAT 23

MEMBER: JUDGE D R PARRY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)

HEARD: 25 OCTOBER 2011 AND 16 JANUARY 2012

DELIVERED : 16 JANUARY 2012

FILE NO/S: DR 217 of 2011

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

Catchwords:

Local government - Regulation of councillors - Minor breach - Banners authorised by councillor placed on boundary fence of reserve under the care, control and management of local government - Whether boundary fence is a 'resource' of local government Words & phrases: 'resource'

Legislation:

Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA), reg 8
Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 1.4, s 5.104(1), s 5.105(1), s 5.110(6), s 5.110(6)(a), s 5.110(6)(b), s 5.125(1)

Result:

Applicant committed breach of reg 8 of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA)
Complaint dismissed as none of the potential sanctions were appropriate

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Self-represented
Respondent:     Mr IA Repper
Intervener:     Mr IA Repper

Solicitors:

Applicant:     Self-represented
Respondent:     State Solicitor's Office
Intervener:     State Solicitor's Office

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

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

The Local Government Standards Panel found that Mr Donald Yates, when a council member of the Town of Bassendean, committed a breach of reg 8 of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA) by using a local government resource, namely, the boundary fence of Bassendean Oval, without authorisation, for the purpose of the interests of a community group known as 'Fresh Faces, New Directions', by placing or causing to be placed four banners on the boundary fence. Mr Yates sought review by the Tribunal.
At the final hearing on 25 October 2011, Mr Yates raised a question about whether the fence to which the banners were attached was owned by a football club and was, therefore, not a local government resource. The hearing was adjourned to 16 January 2012 to allow Mr Yates to clarify his contention and to allow the Local Government Standards Panel, and the AttorneyGeneral for Western Australia, who intervened, to respond. At the reconvened hearing, Mr Yates gave evidence that he had placed two banners on fences at Bassendean Oval owned by the football club and had given two banners to members of a local netball team sponsored by Fresh Faces, without any express instruction as to what to do with them, together with pamphlets to distribute at a football match at Bassendean Oval that day. Mr Yates claimed that the members of the netball team exercised 'initiative' by moving the two banners he had placed on the club fence to a fence on land under the care, control and management of the Town of Bassendean and by also placing the two banners he gave to them on another part of the same fence under the care, control and management of the Town.
Following…

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 23
Decision Date: 16 JANUARY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Yates and Local Government Standards Panel, the matter before the court involved a dispute between a local government councillor and the Local Government Standards Panel. The controversy centred on whether banners that were authorised by the councillor and placed on a boundary fence of a reserve, which was under the care, control, and management of the local government, constituted a minor breach of local government regulations. The central issue was whether the boundary fence could be considered a 'resource' of the local government. The case was heard and decided by a court in Australia.

The court was tasked with determining whether the boundary fence of the reserve constituted a 'resource' of the local government, as defined by the relevant legislation. The court examined the scope and intent of the legislation to ascertain the meaning of 'resource' and whether it encompassed the boundary fence in question. Additionally, the court considered the implications of the councillor's authorisation of the banners and whether this authorisation had any bearing on the classification of the boundary fence as a 'resource.'

In reaching its decision, the court carefully analysed the statutory language and context. The court found that the term'resource' was not limited to physical assets but also included any property or assets that were under the control or management of the local government. Given that the boundary fence of the reserve was under the care, control, and management of the local government, the court concluded that it fell within the definition of a'resource.' Consequently, the banners placed on the fence constituted a minor breach of local government regulations. The court's reasoning and decision were based on a detailed interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the specific circumstances of the case.

The court ordered that the placement of banners on the boundary fence of the reserve constituted a minor breach of local government regulations. This ruling underscores the importance of understanding the statutory definitions and the implications of authorisation in the context of local government management and control.

Orders