PART 6: WHY THE BAN ?

For nearly 40 years I have been a Citizen, Resident, Elector and Ratepayer of the City of Armadale Local Government, Western Australia.

This report outlines some of my experiences with the City of Armadale over many years, culminating in the recent official banning of myself asking reasonable questions and receiving meaningful responses during the statutory Public Question Time in Council and/or Committee meetings.

I have always been polite, respectful, used temperate language, never raised my voice, never spoken out of turn, never been argumentative, never challenged the Person Presiding, always observed procedure and process, always complied with the Person Presiding's directions and requests, and mostly submitted written questions in advance to the CEO, to allow time for consideration, research and preparation of responses, as applicable.

This ban is exclusive to myself in a city having a population around 80,000 of whom around 40,000 are "Electors".

In the absence of an explanation or justification from the City, it is my belief this personal ban was most likely imposed as a result of my persistent advocacy - on behalf of an ignorant and frightened public - to planned changes through 2014-2015 to City of Armadale Local Law Standing Orders 2000.

It may be coincidental, but the Notice banning myself was issued on the same day as a letter responding to my Public Questions relating to planned changes to City of Armadale Local Law Standing Orders 2000.

My investigation of Standing Orders and those “Management Policies” referenced in them, reveal it is the case that Standing Orders are conceptually intended to be simple and easily understood generic procedures for the orderly management of meetings.

There is no rational reason why Standing Orders should be a law supported by monetary penalties because they apply to Council itself and its Councillor members.

After all, these are the community’s most upright and honourable citizens – beyond reproach.

The inference from Council’s ethos is that without formal Standing Orders having the status of a local law with penalties, Council and/or its Committees cannot control themselves. Yet Parliament has determined Council is responsible in law for managing the local government, for providing leadership to itself and its officers and to the community it governs.

It is reasonable to ask then if Council is incapable of governing itself how can it be entrusted to govern a whole community ?

How can a community have faith in such a body ?

However the practical effect from the existence of Standing Orders as a law with penalties enables the Executive and Mayor (underwritten by sycophant Councillors) to entirely control the agenda, business and outcomes of meetings – as they so choose. (for proof see the minuted record of “unanimous” decisions)

Even if individual Councillors disgree with the requirements of Standing Orders, they cannot change them – even if they were not a Councillor when Standing Orders were last reviewed – (nominally 8 year intervals) normally every fourth Council. Newly elected Councillors inherit the closed shop system and must comply because it is pre-determined law.

This status ensures Council may become merely a rubber stamp entity, afraid to speak against its executives and/or their agendas, under threat of severe penalties. (for proof see the minuted record of debates – or lack thereof)

In the case of the City of Armadale, there has been a longstanding ethos – codified in formal policy, of a “team spirit” between Executive and Council, and between Councillors. Councillors are expected to comply and conform to the team spirit – and they do.

The minuted record of Committees and Council under at least three Mayors over the past 19 years verifies a pattern of consistent and systematic "unanimous" decisions.

Watching a City of Armadale Council meeting is a similar experience to this one – albeit on a smaller scale.

Notice how there is a high level of camaraderie and team spirit as the parliament votes unanimously in harmony with the person presiding.

In terms of influencing outcomes, individual Councillors are merely flies on the wall.

The “Ward” system, comprising two Councillors for each of seven Wards (Council comprises a total of 14 Councillors), ensures individual Councillors are always outnumbered 13 to one.

Thus when it comes to allocating physical and financial resources to Wards, unequal competition between Ward representatives ensures some Wards will be advantaged at the expense of others.

When Councillors form blocs or cabals to pursue common interest, excluded Ward representatives have no option but to acquiesce - and thereby become ineffective.

Ward representation is further diluted in Council’s sub-Committee system, where only one representative from each Ward participates. This sets aside potential expertise and wisdom in considerations, reviews and recommendations – particularly when Ward representatives for a particular Ward disagree on matters or policy, have not been party to Ratepayer submissions or do not support the opinions of their Ratepayers.

Democratic representation under such conditions is dead.

What exists lies somewhere between dictatorship, autocracy, socialism, fascism or communism.

Notwithstanding my persistent personal questioning resulted in the planned draconian changes being ultimately rescinded and replaced with less severe constraints and penalties – but still a local law, (Source: Council Meeting 21 December 2015 page 15: Motion carried unanimously), it is believed the ban upon me was nonetheless apparently imposed to prevent further enquiry of the City on any other contentious (to it) issues.

It was apparent to myself that the game plan supporting the introduction of planned changes in 2014 to City of Armadale Local Law Standing Orders 2000 (as amended 2014) was to stifle dissent within Council to business matters as presented by pre-prepared agendas presented to Committees and Council.

In other words, to enhance success of proposed outcomes.

Further details relating to Standing Orders are presented in Part 17: The Saga of Standing Orders

The City of Armadale local government has not sought to justify the ban with any explanation.

It has claimed however that:

a) "Public Question Time is the opportunity for all members of the public to attend and ask questions of their Council about issues that are of concern to them."

BUT subject to:

"Public Question Time is not an opportunity for members of the public to make statements, debate matters or to obtain information that is otherwise available administratively under section

5.94 of the Local Government Act 1995 or the Freedom of Information Act 1992."

For convenience, S5.94 of the Local Government Act 1995 is reproduced hereunder.

5.94. Public can inspect certain local government information

A person can attend the office of a local government during office hours and, unless it would be contrary to section 5.95, inspect, free of charge, in the form or medium in which it is held by the local government and whether or not it is current at the time of inspection —

(a) any code of conduct;

(aa) any regulations prescribing rules of conduct of council members referred to in section 5.104;

(ab) any register of complaints referred to in section 5.121;

(b) any register of financial interests;

(c) any annual report;

(d) any annual budget;

(e) any schedule of fees and charges;

(f) any plan for the future of the district made in accordance with section 5.56;

(g) any proposed local law of which the local government has given Statewide public notice under section 3.12(3);

(h) any local law made by the local government in accordance with section 3.12;

(i) any regulations made by the Governor under section 9.60 that operate as if they were local laws of the local government;

(j) any text that —

(i) is adopted (whether directly or indirectly) by a local law of the local government or by a regulation that is to operate as if it were a local law of the local government; or

(ii) would be adopted by a proposed local law of which the local government has given Statewide public notice under section 3.12(3);

(k) any subsidiary legislation made or adopted by the local government under any written law other than under this Act;

(l) any written law having a provision in respect of which the local government has a power or duty to enforce;

(m) any rates record;

(n) any confirmed minutes of council or committee meetings;

(o) any minutes of electors’ meetings;

(p) any notice papers and agenda relating to any council or committee meeting and reports and other documents that have been —

(i) tabled at a council or committee meeting; or

(ii) produced by the local government or a committee for presentation at a council or committee meeting and which have been presented at the meeting;

(q) any report of a review of a local law prepared under section 3.16(3);

(r) any business plan prepared under section 3.59;

(s) any register of owners and occupiers under section 4.32(6) and electoral rolls;

(t) any contract under section 5.39 and variation of such contract;

(u) such other information relating to the local government —

(i) required by a provision of this Act to be available for public inspection; or

(ii) as may be prescribed".

Note: Information provided under the Freedom of Information Act is provided only upon formal request and within the extent of discretional limits and PAYMENT OF

PRESCRIBED FEES by an enquirer.

Freedom of Information requests incur delays which result in information becoming available only after the event.

b) By asking detailed questions I have wasted "resources"

S5.95 of the Local Government Act provides – in relation to INSPECTION of information:

5.95. Limits on right to inspect local government information

(1) A person’s right to inspect information refer red to in section 5.94 does not extend to the inspection of information —

(a) which is not current at the time of inspection; and

(b) which, in the CEO’s opinion, would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the local government’s resources away from its other functions.

Thus the CEO has determined, "in the CEO's opinion" , that orally asking reasonable and relevant questions during a formal Public Question Time in a Council incurs "extensive and unreasonable demands of Council and City Officers" and is deemed to be a breach of S5.95, despite S5.95 not applying to Public Question Time.

It should be noted that all of my questions submitted to the local government during the term of the current Mayor, have been submitted through - and accepted by - the Person Presiding, thus it appears there are different interpretations of the law between Council and its CEO.

It is relevant that most questions have been responded to directly by the Person Presiding so have not incurred officer time.

However it must be noted that any time or resources required to be applied to respond to all or any questions referred to the administration by Council and to be responded to on behalf of Council, are authorised by Council by that referral. e.g Council Meeting 21 December 2015 page 15: Item 490/12/15 Paragrah 2

In relation to “(b) which, in the CEO’s opinion, would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the local government’s resources away from its other functions.” it is relevant to refer to Part 3 of the Local Government` Act 1995, which sets out the functions of local governments.

S3.1 defines:

(1) The general function of a local government is to provide for the good government of persons in it's district.

(3) A liberal approach is to be taken to the construction of the scope of the general function of a local government.”

Thus THE LAW determines the general function of local government is to provide for the good government of persons in its district

Therefore the condition at (1) above – i.e. “will divert an unreasonable amount of officer time away from other functions” – determines responding to Elector questions is not “good government” - yet another rewriting of law.

Worse, the WA Constitution Act 1889 prescribes at S52;

“52. Elected local governing bodies

(1) The Legislature shall maintain a system of local governing bodies elected and constituted in such manner as the Legislature may from time to time provide.

(2) Each elected local governing body shall have such powers as the Legislature may from time to time provide being such powers as the Legislature considers necessary for the better government of the area in respect of which the body is constituted.”

Note how the constitutional requirement for “better” government has been reduced by the Legislature to “good” government.

“Better” implies “continuous improvement” whereas “good” implies “good enough” is good enough.

It may be the case then that S3.1 of the Local Government Act is unconstitutional.

In any event S3.1 LIMITS or RESTRICTS the powers of local governments to those specifically prescribed in the Act.

Banning citizens is not such a power.