❓ A WA parliamentary question seeks data on the Department of Local Government's actions regarding alleged breaches of the Local Government Act by council members since 2005. The response provides data from September 2008 onwards, differentiating between 'General' and 'Serious Breach' complaints, and outlining various outcomes.
AnsweredQoN 3481Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
In relation to the Department of Local Government or its predecessor, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development, I ask:
(a) how many times since 1 January 2005 has the Department written formally to a sitting or former local government council member implying a breach of the
Local Government Act 1995
(LGA) and advising that legal action may be taken; and
(i) please provide a breakdown of the responses, year by year;
(b) how many times since 1 January 2005 has the Department written formally to a sitting or former local government council member implying a breach of the LGA and advising that the matter may be taken to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT); and
(i) please provide a breakdown of the responses, year by year; and
(c) what were the outcomes from the communications identified at (a) and (b), and on how many occasions did they occur; and
(i) please include the breakdown for each of the following outcomes year by year:
(A) taken to court with a final outcome by the court of guilty;
(B) taken to court with a final outcome by the court of not guilty;
(C) listed for court or taken to court and a court outcome is pending;
(D) taken to SAT with a final outcome by the SAT of an adverse finding against the council member;
(E) taken to SAT with a final outcome by the SAT of no adverse finding against the council member;
(F) listed for SAT or taken to SAT and a SAT outcome is pending;
(G) closed, with a caution response to the sitting or former council member concerned as a result of that person admitting guilt, or some other form of inappropriate action or conduct;
(H) closed, with a caution response to the sitting or former council member concerned, citing that it was not in the public interest to pursue prosecution;
(I) closed, with a caution response to the sitting or former council member concerned, for reasons other than pursuit of the matter not being in the public interest, admission of guilt or other inappropriate action;
(J) closed, with no action or caution required (i.e the Department concluded no breach had occurred);
(K) open and pending Departmental assessment; and
(L) any other outcome not identified above.
(a) how many times since 1 January 2005 has the Department written formally to a sitting or former local government council member implying a breach of the
Local Government Act 1995
(LGA) and advising that legal action may be taken; and
(i) please provide a breakdown of the responses, year by year;
(b) how many times since 1 January 2005 has the Department written formally to a sitting or former local government council member implying a breach of the LGA and advising that the matter may be taken to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT); and
(i) please provide a breakdown of the responses, year by year; and
(c) what were the outcomes from the communications identified at (a) and (b), and on how many occasions did they occur; and
(i) please include the breakdown for each of the following outcomes year by year:
(A) taken to court with a final outcome by the court of guilty;
(B) taken to court with a final outcome by the court of not guilty;
(C) listed for court or taken to court and a court outcome is pending;
(D) taken to SAT with a final outcome by the SAT of an adverse finding against the council member;
(E) taken to SAT with a final outcome by the SAT of no adverse finding against the council member;
(F) listed for SAT or taken to SAT and a SAT outcome is pending;
(G) closed, with a caution response to the sitting or former council member concerned as a result of that person admitting guilt, or some other form of inappropriate action or conduct;
(H) closed, with a caution response to the sitting or former council member concerned, citing that it was not in the public interest to pursue prosecution;
(I) closed, with a caution response to the sitting or former council member concerned, for reasons other than pursuit of the matter not being in the public interest, admission of guilt or other inappropriate action;
(J) closed, with no action or caution required (i.e the Department concluded no breach had occurred);
(K) open and pending Departmental assessment; and
(L) any other outcome not identified above.
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 August 2010
Responded by
Minister for Local Government
Response time
47 days
Please note that the Liberal National Government came into office on 23 September 2008 and, as such, cannot provide answers for the previous Government administration.
The Department deals with two distinct types of complaints: General Complaints and Serious Breach Complaints. Both categories are defined by the requirement to follow different legislative process in each case.
General Complaints
General Complaints are defined as those that do not fall under the Provisions of the
Local Government (Official Conduct) Amendment Act 2007;
these types of complaints are diverse and can encompass allegations concerning dissatisfaction with the operations of a local government that are not a breach of any legislation and also include serious matters such as offences committed by individuals that can result in prosecutions.
Serious Breach Complaints
Serious Breach Complaints are referred to the Departmental Chief Executive Officer (CEO) under Section 5.116(2) of the
Local Government Act 1995
(LGA 1995). If the Departmental CEO considers it appropriate to do so, the Departmental CEO may, whether or not a complaint has been sent to the Departmental CEO, make an allegation to the State Administrative Tribunal that the council member committed a serious breach.
Section 5.116(3) of the LGA 1995states that in deciding whether it would be appropriate to make an allegation to the State Administrative Tribunal, the Departmental CEO has to consider whether it would be more appropriate for the matter to be dealt with in another way.
(a) Serious Breach Complaints: 98
Of the 343 General Complaints received, 34 warnings were issued relating to Breaches of the LGA 1995.
(i)
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
Serious Breach Complaints: 53
General Complaints: 19
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
Serious Breach Complaints: 45
General Complaints: 15
(b)
From 23 September 2008
Serious Breaches Complaints: 98
(i) Please see answer to Question (a)(i)
(c) Serious Breach Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
· Complaint Dismissed: 25
· Departmental Warning Issued: 4
· Referred to Other Agency: 2
· No Jurisdiction to Act by Dept or Minister: 1
· Complaint Unfounded: 1
· Non-Complying Complaint: 20
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
· Complaint Dismissed: 4
· Departmental Warning Issued: 4
· Non-Complying Complaint: 37
General Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
· Complaint Dismissed: 3
· Department Warning Issued: 19
· Referred to Other Agency: 13
· No Jurisdiction to Act by Dept or Minister: 17
· Complaint Unfounded: 27
· Advice Provided No Further Action by Dept: 70
· Unsubstantiated: 15
· Recorded for Ongoing Monitoring Purposes: 18
· Process Improvement Recommended: 5
· Referred to Local Government for Other Action: 1
· Department Prosecution: 2
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
· Complaint Dismissed: 7
· Departmental Warning Issued: 15
· Referred to other Agency: 4
· No Jurisdiction to Act by Dept or Minister: 21
· Complaint Unfounded: 14
· Advice Provided No Further Action by Dept: 58
· Unsubstantiated: 12
· Recorded for Ongoing Monitoring Purposes: 14
· Process Improvement Recommended: 3
· Referred to Local Government for Other Action: 5
(A)
23 September 2008 to 30 June 2009
2 Prosecutionsand 2 Guilty outcomes
1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010
Nil Prosecutions and Nil Guilty outcomes
(B)-(F) Nil
(G) Serious Breach Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
o Departmental Warning Given: 4
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
o Departmental Warning Given: 4
General Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
o Department Warning Issued: 19
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
o Departmental Warning Issued: 15
(H)-(I) In all cases, when deciding on prosecution, the Department takes into account whether a prima facie case exists and whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
(J) Serious Breach Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
· Complaint Dismissed: 25
· Complaint Unfounded: 1
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
· Complaint Dismissed: 4
General Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
· Complaint Dismissed: 3
· Complaint Unfounded: 27
· Unsubstantiated: 15
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
· Complaint Dismissed: 7
· Complaint Unfounded: 14
· Unsubstantiated: 1
(K) As of 5 July 2010, the Department has 139 open and pending assessments, of these, 91 are General, 48 are Serious Breach complaints.
Serious Breach Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
7
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
41
General Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
29
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
62
(L) Not Applicable
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
The Department deals with two distinct types of complaints: General Complaints and Serious Breach Complaints. Both categories are defined by the requirement to follow different legislative process in each case.
General Complaints
General Complaints are defined as those that do not fall under the Provisions of the
Local Government (Official Conduct) Amendment Act 2007;
these types of complaints are diverse and can encompass allegations concerning dissatisfaction with the operations of a local government that are not a breach of any legislation and also include serious matters such as offences committed by individuals that can result in prosecutions.
Serious Breach Complaints
Serious Breach Complaints are referred to the Departmental Chief Executive Officer (CEO) under Section 5.116(2) of the
Local Government Act 1995
(LGA 1995). If the Departmental CEO considers it appropriate to do so, the Departmental CEO may, whether or not a complaint has been sent to the Departmental CEO, make an allegation to the State Administrative Tribunal that the council member committed a serious breach.
Section 5.116(3) of the LGA 1995states that in deciding whether it would be appropriate to make an allegation to the State Administrative Tribunal, the Departmental CEO has to consider whether it would be more appropriate for the matter to be dealt with in another way.
(a) Serious Breach Complaints: 98
Of the 343 General Complaints received, 34 warnings were issued relating to Breaches of the LGA 1995.
(i)
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
Serious Breach Complaints: 53
General Complaints: 19
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
Serious Breach Complaints: 45
General Complaints: 15
(b)
From 23 September 2008
Serious Breaches Complaints: 98
(i) Please see answer to Question (a)(i)
(c) Serious Breach Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
· Complaint Dismissed: 25
· Departmental Warning Issued: 4
· Referred to Other Agency: 2
· No Jurisdiction to Act by Dept or Minister: 1
· Complaint Unfounded: 1
· Non-Complying Complaint: 20
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
· Complaint Dismissed: 4
· Departmental Warning Issued: 4
· Non-Complying Complaint: 37
General Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
· Complaint Dismissed: 3
· Department Warning Issued: 19
· Referred to Other Agency: 13
· No Jurisdiction to Act by Dept or Minister: 17
· Complaint Unfounded: 27
· Advice Provided No Further Action by Dept: 70
· Unsubstantiated: 15
· Recorded for Ongoing Monitoring Purposes: 18
· Process Improvement Recommended: 5
· Referred to Local Government for Other Action: 1
· Department Prosecution: 2
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
· Complaint Dismissed: 7
· Departmental Warning Issued: 15
· Referred to other Agency: 4
· No Jurisdiction to Act by Dept or Minister: 21
· Complaint Unfounded: 14
· Advice Provided No Further Action by Dept: 58
· Unsubstantiated: 12
· Recorded for Ongoing Monitoring Purposes: 14
· Process Improvement Recommended: 3
· Referred to Local Government for Other Action: 5
(A)
23 September 2008 to 30 June 2009
2 Prosecutionsand 2 Guilty outcomes
1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010
Nil Prosecutions and Nil Guilty outcomes
(B)-(F) Nil
(G) Serious Breach Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
o Departmental Warning Given: 4
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
o Departmental Warning Given: 4
General Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
o Department Warning Issued: 19
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
o Departmental Warning Issued: 15
(H)-(I) In all cases, when deciding on prosecution, the Department takes into account whether a prima facie case exists and whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
(J) Serious Breach Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
· Complaint Dismissed: 25
· Complaint Unfounded: 1
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
· Complaint Dismissed: 4
General Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
· Complaint Dismissed: 3
· Complaint Unfounded: 27
· Unsubstantiated: 15
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
· Complaint Dismissed: 7
· Complaint Unfounded: 14
· Unsubstantiated: 1
(K) As of 5 July 2010, the Department has 139 open and pending assessments, of these, 91 are General, 48 are Serious Breach complaints.
Serious Breach Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
7
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
41
General Complaints:
23 September 2008 - 30 June 2009
29
1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010
62
(L) Not Applicable
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.