❓ A parliamentary question probes the Local Government Minister regarding a Show Cause Notice issued to the Town of Cambridge, specifically concerning allegations of CEO intimidation of employees providing information to an inquiry. The Minister's response confirms the allegations and admits no opportunity was given to the CEO or Council to respond prior to the notice.
AnsweredQoN 6484Legislative Assembly
Asked
15 October 2020
Member
Portfolio
Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Show Cause Notice delivered to the Town of Cambridge on 26 May 2020, in which you write “3. I suspect that the Council has failed to ensure that the workplace culture at the Town is free from intimidation of employees and undue pressure on employees. In particular c) directors and managers of the Town have reported that the CEO told them that if they provided information to the inquiry authorised by the CEO of the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries under Division 1 of Part 8 of the Act ‘for the wrong reasons’ then these people may ‘suffer the consequences’;”, and I ask: (a) Without disclosing the author of any evidence you received, how many witnesses provided evidence to you, and on what date(s), in relation to: (i) (3)(c) above; (b) Was any evidence received which was provided on behalf of an organisation(s)? If yes, what organisation and on what dates(s) in relation to: (i) (3)(c) above; (c) Prior to issuing the Show Cause Notice on 26 May 2020, did you notify the CEO and the Town of Cambridge Council that you had received this evidence, and if yes, when did you notify them; (d) Prior to issuing the Show Cause Notice on 26 May 2020, did you provide an opportunity for the CEO, the Mayor and/or Councillors of the Town of Cambridge to respond to the evidence you received: (i) If yes, who did you receive responses from and on what date(s); and (ii) If you are unable to provide names for (i) above, how many Councillors did you receive a response from which directly related to the evidence you received; and (e) If no to (d), how was procedural fairness provided to the Mayor and Council of the Town of Cambridge to respond to the evidence you received?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
19 November 2020
Responded by
Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts
Response time
12 days
(a) I refer to Finding 3 and paragraphs 50 and 80-85 of the Report of the Inquiry into the Town of Cambridge:
Finding 03: The CEO’s comments could be construed as intimidating to any employees that provided or wanted to provide information to the Inquiry.
50. Employees stated:
a. the Mayor acts as if the she is the CEO and that CEO John Giorgi reacts to all the Mayor’s requests;
b. the poor culture was in part due to the ongoing Authorised Inquiry, expressing a deep fear of losing their jobs if they provided any information to the Authorised Persons. The employees felt this is what had happened to previous staff
c. the culture at the town had become increasingly worse since the appointment of CEO John Giorgi, in part because he does not stand up to the Mayor.”
80. On 6 March 2020, CEO John Giorgi held a management meeting with the Town’s Directors and Managers stating if he finds out anyone from the Town has provided information to the department ‘for the wrong reasons’, there would be serious consequences.
81. Authorised Persons asked the employees if the CEO stated what those consequences would be. CEO John Giorgi did not say what the consequences would be, however the staff took it to mean their employment would be at risk. Staff reported the meeting as ‘threatening’.
82. Draft meeting minutes stated: It appears that information from within the Town is being provided to the AI [Authorised Inquiry] and so long as this is being done for the right reasons, the CEO is comfortable with this. If information is being provided for the wrong reasons, then these people will suffer the consequences.
83. The draft meeting minutes were slightly amended on request of the CEO John Giorgi to state: CEO advised that it appears that information from within the Town is being provided to the AI and so long as this is being done for the ‘right reasons’, the CEO is comfortable with this. If information is being provided for the ‘wrong reasons’, then these people may suffer the consequences.
84. On 7 March 2020, CEO John Giorgi summonsed various staff to his office and questioned them about whether they had been interviewed by the department.
85. Warning staff not to provide information to the department for the ‘wrong reasons’ could have intimidated employees and may have hindered Authorised Persons from undertaking their inquiry functions.
(b) No
(c-d) No
(d)(i-ii) Not applicable
(e) Please refer to Legislative Assembly question on notice 6477
Finding 03: The CEO’s comments could be construed as intimidating to any employees that provided or wanted to provide information to the Inquiry.
50. Employees stated:
a. the Mayor acts as if the she is the CEO and that CEO John Giorgi reacts to all the Mayor’s requests;
b. the poor culture was in part due to the ongoing Authorised Inquiry, expressing a deep fear of losing their jobs if they provided any information to the Authorised Persons. The employees felt this is what had happened to previous staff
c. the culture at the town had become increasingly worse since the appointment of CEO John Giorgi, in part because he does not stand up to the Mayor.”
80. On 6 March 2020, CEO John Giorgi held a management meeting with the Town’s Directors and Managers stating if he finds out anyone from the Town has provided information to the department ‘for the wrong reasons’, there would be serious consequences.
81. Authorised Persons asked the employees if the CEO stated what those consequences would be. CEO John Giorgi did not say what the consequences would be, however the staff took it to mean their employment would be at risk. Staff reported the meeting as ‘threatening’.
82. Draft meeting minutes stated: It appears that information from within the Town is being provided to the AI [Authorised Inquiry] and so long as this is being done for the right reasons, the CEO is comfortable with this. If information is being provided for the wrong reasons, then these people will suffer the consequences.
83. The draft meeting minutes were slightly amended on request of the CEO John Giorgi to state: CEO advised that it appears that information from within the Town is being provided to the AI and so long as this is being done for the ‘right reasons’, the CEO is comfortable with this. If information is being provided for the ‘wrong reasons’, then these people may suffer the consequences.
84. On 7 March 2020, CEO John Giorgi summonsed various staff to his office and questioned them about whether they had been interviewed by the department.
85. Warning staff not to provide information to the department for the ‘wrong reasons’ could have intimidated employees and may have hindered Authorised Persons from undertaking their inquiry functions.
(b) No
(c-d) No
(d)(i-ii) Not applicable
(e) Please refer to Legislative Assembly question on notice 6477
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.