LGEMA - Local Government Elected Members Association

27/10/2026

LGEMA FORUM Sunday 8th November

To our LGEMA members and those EMs or former EMs who are thinking of joining as LGEMA members or future EM candidate or community member associate member we have a try booking link to RSVP for our next forum Sunday 8th November 2026.
RSVP at TRY Bookings https://www.trybooking.com/DRDTV

The program which is here https://lgema.org.au/forums and we have speakers on,
WORKPLACE SAFETY:
early intervention
REFLECTIONS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUDITS:
what we can learn from Nedlands independent forensic audit
UNDERSTANDING LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT BREACH CHANGES:
Elected Member conduct

LGEMA 2026 FORUM THREE TryBooking link here: LGEMA 2026 FORUM THREE Tickets, The Grove Library, Peppermint Grove | TryBooking Australia Date: SUNDAY 8 November 2026 Time: 12MD – 4pm LGEMA MEMBERS AND MEMBER APPLICANTS ARE INVITED TO OUR NEXT LGEMA FORUM WORKPLACE SAFETY:early intervention REFLECTI...

26/10/2026

EM PRIVACY, SAFETY: PART 3 PRIVACY DECISION MAKING

Statutory public register does not have to be available online to fall within PRIS Act. Public inspection rights can bring register within legislation.

LG corporate entity — Council—is the information privacy principles (IPP) entity.

Council oversees privacy decisions about individual EMs and employees. CEO as PRIS Act “principal officer” does not necessarily have executive authority to decide privacy of entry on any register.

PRIS Act and material LG Act provisions for each register need to be read together to decide who is the decision maker. Council policy needs to fill in the gaps and address CEO conflicts of interest in such decisions.

26/10/2026

EM PRIVACY, SAFETY: PART 2 — EMs do not have to wait until information is published

Privacy application can concern personal information proposed to be included in public register.

EMs, who can identify genuine safety, wellbeing risk before their information published, can apply.

OIC confirmed to LGEMA that reasonably foreseeable risks may be relevant; whether or not statutory threshold met depends on circumstances.

Source: PRIS Act s. 77(1)–(2); OIC correspondence to LGEMA.

24/10/2026

EM SAFETY

EMs are,
• not protected by the LG Act
• not protected as workers under Work Health Safety Act
• not covered by Equal Opportunity Act
• not covered by Workers Comp Act
• not protected by effective whistleblower protection
• not specifically protected under the WA Criminal Code
• limited from effective debate and asking governing questions by conduct rules and no privilege attached to council meetings
• subjected to aggressive lobbyists who are unregulated in LG, which is compounded by being,
• in a jurisdiction that does not have third party merits review rights against development approvals, which means all pressures from applicant developers falls on EMs and employees in LG workplace rather than the SAT
• under-resourced, especially where CEO is the person against whom they need resources controls the access to resources
• often unlawfully denied access to their LG’s records against which there a no effective remedy
• subjected to vexatious and misinformed social media, which causes them psychosocial harm and which can lead to physical harm
• if in a minority, can be subjected to unfair and vexatious complaint practices and can be denied legal help by that same majority
• bound by a legal framework that keeps changing, which they have to comply with that is unfathomable, poorly taught, poorly administered by an arguably captured Department whichis not properly regulating LG
• having their right to freedom of political communication unlawfully restricted by threats, vexatious complaints, restrictively interpreted conduct rules
• facing suspension or dismissal the minute they are part of a Council majority questioning a CEO or senior employee with a possible outcome is that the powers that be decide the Council is dysfunctional and they are dismissed so the CEO remains employed to work with Commissioners
• paying personally to go to SAT to overturn unlawfully decided conduct complaints
• sued for defamation for something they say at a Council meeting
• sometimes subject to invasion of their privacy by unlawful interception of their devices and/or postal mail by LG employees
• “represented” to the state (WALGA) and Cth (ALGA) governments who base much of their "representative" advocacy on sectoral (employee) interests and not on Council adopted resolutions and not on Elected Member wellbeing and safety and not on fostering a framework that empowers EMs to perform their role as fully informed safe members of Councils
• are elected into majority Councils often elected by sectoral interests rather than the whole community because we do not have compulsory LG voting.

There are well performing LG CEOs and employees, but there are enough poorly performing ones to ensure misspending of ratepayers' public monies and services not delivered, and who have enough influence so this unacceptable state of affairs continues to decline as the LG Act gets changed again and again without public or Elected Member consultation or any regard to EM safety ... and so it goes.

To those EMs who are actively performing their governing roles in the face of all this - you are saints.

23/10/2026

Sister Cities, Sister Councils

This LGEMA letter to the Post newspaper was published 23 October 2026.

Following our letter The Post 16 October, Amalgamation? Let’s test cooperation first, we see another opportunity for Elected Members to consider how cooperation between local governments could better serve their communities.

Councils could review their sister-city arrangements and publish the full costs, including travel, accommodation, hosting delegations, gifts and employee time. What measurable benefits do residents and ratepayers receive, and are those benefits proportionate to the expenditure? International relationships can provide cultural, educational and economic value. However, good governing Elected Members will examine whether or not existing arrangements remain active and worthwhile—and if an alternative could deliver more direct benefits to their communities.

What about Sister Council partnerships within WA?

A well-resourced metropolitan or regional Council could partner with a smaller more remote Council. Elected Members could exchange experience in governance, policy and community engagement, while employees could share expertise, provide mentoring and help address shortages in professional skills and resources.

This could go beyond informal cooperation through establishment of a regional subsidiary to share knowledge and resources, including through employee temporary exchanges.

A Sister Council partnership would benefit Elected Members and residents through shared learning, stronger services and more resilient local government. It would also foster lasting social connections between the communities themselves, through joint community projects, cultural and sporting exchanges, school links and opportunities for residents to share experiences and build mutual understanding.

This is not a call to abandon sister cities. It is a challenge to Elected Members: review the costs, test the benefits and consider if a partnership closer to home could better serve their District.

It is timely to ask not just which sister city a Council has, but if it could gain more from a sister Council.

22/10/2026

EM PRIVACY, SAFETY: PART 1

From 1 July 2026, "Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 (WA)" (PRIS Act) provides statutory process for requesting removal, non-inclusion of personal information in qualifying public register, such as a LG Act register.

EMs can apply where making information publicly available is, or would be, likely to substantially affect their safety or wellbeing.

Not automatic right to secrecy; public interest in continued access is relevant to decision making.

Source: PRIS Act ss. 77, 226

22/10/2026

DRONES PART SIX: LG AND PRIVATE LAND

WA LGs can regulate drones over private land but not simply because land within its District. LG Act s.3.1, 3.5 provide broad local law-making powers, if connected to legitimate local-government function, & comply with other written laws.

Local laws could regulate local impacts of drone use, including unreasonable noise, disturbance, risks to public safety. However, regulating aviation, prescribing flight heights, imposing blanket prohibition on flying over private land would be substantially more difficult to justify, given Commonwealth aviation regulation.

Where LG owns, operates a country aerodrome > stronger grounds to regulate drone launching, landing, activities on airport land > does not confer general power to regulate surrounding airspace, override Commonwealth aviation laws: see Cth Better Practice Guide to Drone Laws (March 2026)

See more about State and territory rules at Drones

21/10/2026

LGEMA LETTER Published in Post newspaper this week: Amalgamation? Let’s test cooperation first

Western Australians need not choose between local representation and efficient effective administration services.

The POST reported on 9 October that Professor Brian Dollery’s 2021 research had found no empirical evidence that WA local government mergers would deliver savings or other measurable benefits. He also reported that Australian and international research cast doubt on amalgamation improving municipal efficiency and financial viability.

The Local Government Act authorises Councils to share CEOs and senior employees, and establish a regional subsidiary.

A regional subsidiary is a separate legal entity through which participating local governments jointly deliver agreed functions and services without amalgamating.

The Act does not expressly require adjoining boundaries to establish a regional subsidiary. Councils could cooperate according to practical needs and potential savings, rather than geography alone.

Why not test these arrangements first?

Councils could decide to share CEO, executives, corporate services, procurement, technology, planning expertise and contractors. Administrative duplication is reduced while retaining their elected Councils and local identities. Co-operation could help local governments with limited reserves access expertise and economies of scale.

Amalgamated larger local governments are not necessarily better. Larger Councils can find it harder to maintain meaningful local representation, understand neighbourhood needs and deliver responsive local services.

The Government proposes removing the Dadour poll provision. Consultation is not the same as giving electors a formal poll on amalgamation. Communities should not lose that safeguard before less disruptive alternatives have been tested.

Employees and their administrative services are necessary, but their sectoral interests are not necessarily aligned with those of elected Councils, and the ratepayers and communities they are democratically elected to serve.

Measure cooperation first. If it fails, let evidence — not assumption—inform amalgamation proposals.

19/10/2026

Use Too Much Resources FOI Refusal - Rebuttal

New OIC decision will help FOI applicants understand how they can deal with refusal based on resources constrains.

Decision held that:
• resource constraints must be demonstrated, not merely asserted; relevant considerations include time period covered, document numbers & locations, complexity, consultation requirements, staffing, competing operational demands; and
• although their limited resources can justify refusing an excessively burdensome application, statutory requirements must be applied separately and agency must first make reasonable efforts to narrow request.

Re TL4 and Shire of York [2026] WAICmr 16 (27 August 2026)

18/10/2026

DRONES PART FIVE: BEACH SAFETY

Case study — beach safety: Drones are also being used in WA for beach surveillance, shark safety.

Surf Life Saving WA's Drone Patrol operated at 19 surf clubs in 2024/25, providing aerial surveillance for sharks, swimmers in distress, rips and other hazards.

EMs could ask and ARIC should ask:
1. if drones are being used by Council, surf clubs, contractors for public-safety purposes, who owns the footage, who controls access to it, what happens when an incident is identified?
2. are arrangements between the Council and the operator properly documented?