BLANCO and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2026] WASAT 96

[2026] WASAT 96 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA) CITATION : BLANCO and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2026] WASAT 96 MEMBER : MS J HEBITON, MEMBER HEARD : 22 JANUARY 2026 DELIVERED : 14 AUGUST 2026 FILE NO/S : CC 469 of 2025 BETWEEN : CAMILO BLANCO Applicant AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL Respondent ATTORNEY GENERAL Intervenor Catchwords: Local Government Standards Panel - Code of Conduct - Model Code - Whether Councillor sending correspondence in personal capacity regarding Council resolution is an act of administration under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) or the performance of a function of the role of Councillor - Implied constitutional freedom of political communication - Application of administrative law arguments of review to Tribunal proceedings - Elements of Schedule 1, clause 19 of the Model Code -- 1 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 2 Legislation: Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 37, s 37(1)(f) Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA), Sch 1, cl 19 Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (as at 31 December 2025), s 2.7(3), s 2.10, s 2.10(1), s 2.10(1)(a), s 2.10(1)(c), s 5.41(2)(a), s 5.102A, s 5.103, s 5.103(1), s 5.103(2)(b), s 5.103(2)(c), s 5.103(3)(a), s 5.104(1), s 5.105, s 5.105(1), s 5.105(1)(a), s 5.107(1), s 5.107(2), s 5.110, s 5.110(6), s 5.110(6)(b)(i), s 5.110(6)(b)(ii), s 5.110(6)(c), s 5.125, Sch 5.1, Pt 5 Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (as of 1 January 2026), Sch 9.3, Div 7, cl 2, cl 72, cl 72(1), cl 73, cl 73(4), cl 74, cl 74(1), Pt 8A Local Government Amendment Act 2024 (WA), s 71 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 3, s 13(1), s 24, s 27, s 27(1), s 27(2), s 29(3), s 29(3)(c), s 37(1) Result: Application dismissed Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : In Person Respondent : Ms A Jakupovic Intervenor : Ms A Jakupovic Solicitors: Applicant : N/A Respondent : State Solicitor's Office Intervenor : State Solicitor's Office Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Kingston and Local Government Standards Panel [No 2] [2025] WASAT 91 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25; (1997) 189 CLR 520 -- 2 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 3 McCloy v New South Wales (2015) 257 CLR 178 Milner and Local Government Standards Panel [2021] WASAT 103 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CQW17 [2018] FCAFC 110; (2018) 264 FCR 249; 162 ALD 427 Mohammadi v Bethune [2018] WASCA 98 Obourne and Johnston, Local Government Standards Panel, Complaint Number 20240418, delivered on 20 December 2024 R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman [1980] HCA 13; (1980) 144 CLR 13 Re and Local Government Standards Panel [2011] WASAT 108 Treby and Local Government Standards Panel [2010] WASAT 81 Yates and Local Government Standards Panel [2012] WASAT 59 -- 3 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 4 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction 1 This proceeding reviews a decision that Mr Blanco (the Councillor) committed a breach of the Town of Port Hedland (the Town) Council Code of Conduct when he undertook an administrative task that the Council had delegated to the Chief Executive Officer. The Alleged Breach 2 In October 2024, Mr Blanco sent correspondence to individual Councillors and Mayors throughout Australia regarding the use of COVID-19 vaccines shortly after the Council had passed a resolution requiring the Chief Executive Officer (the CEO) to send correspondence regarding the same issue to various Councils throughout Australia. 3 The Local Government Standards Panel (the Panel) determined that Mr Blanco's actions constituted a minor breach of the relevant regulations. The Panel determined that Mr Blanco's actions contributed to the 'administration' of the Council which was prohibited absent an authorisation from either the CEO or the Council. The Panel sanctioned Mr Blanco for the minor breach by ordering that he be publicly censured and by requiring him to make a public apology. The Review Application 4 Mr Blanco seeks review of the decision of the Panel in relation to both the determination that he committed a minor breach and the sanction imposed in relation to that breach (the Review Application). The Hearing Participants 5 The active participants in the proceeding are Mr Blanco and the Attorney General of Western Australia as the intervenor (the intervenor).1 6 The Panel's involvement is limited to meeting its statutory obligation under s 24 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (the SAT Act) to provide all documents relevant to the Review Application.2 As has been stated in Treby and Local Government 1 SAT Act, s 37(1). 2 Exhibit 1, page 55, acting in accordance with the principle in R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman [1980] HCA 13; (1980) 144 CLR 13 at 35 - 36. -- 4 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 5 Standards Panel3 this is appropriate given that the Tribunal may invite the Panel to reconsider the decision or make an order on the review setting aside the decision and sending the matter back to the Panel for reconsideration.4 Procedural Background 7 This matter first came before the Tribunal on 23 July 2025 for a directions hearing to determine the programming of the matter. There were further directions hearings held on 1 and 15 October 2025 and 17 December 2025 that modified the programming orders previously made. 8 On 22 January 2026, a final hearing was conducted. As the factual basis of the matter was agreed between the parties, no witnesses were called and the matter proceeded by way of submissions only. 9 A book of documents submitted by both parties was compiled into a Hearing Book by the Tribunal. At the commencement of the hearing that book was marked as Exhibit 1. 10 Following the conclusion of the final hearing, the Tribunal formed the view that the issue of the correct version of the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (the old LG Act)5 may not have been properly ventilated. Accordingly, the parties were provided with an opportunity to provide written submissions on this issue. Both the intervenor and Mr Blanco took up this opportunity. Issues 11 The parties agree that the issues the Tribunal must determine in this Review Application are:6 Issue 1: Did Mr Blanco commit a minor breach under s 5.105 of the old LG Act by contravening Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA) (the Model Code Regulations or the Model Code); and 3 Treby and Local Government Standards Panel [2010] WASAT 81 (Treby) at [16]. 4 SAT Act, s 29(3)(c). 5 These terms have been applied to ensure consistency with the nomenclature used in the relevant transitional provisions contained in Division 7 of Schedule 9.3 of the amended LG Act. See for example, clause 72. 6 Exhibit 1, page 34, para 4 and page 556, para 4. -- 5 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 6 Issue 2: If Issue 1 is answered in the positive, what are the appropriate sanction(s) to impose under s 5.110(6) of the old LG Act. Facts Mr Blanco's term as a Councillor 12 Mr Blanco was elected to the Council on 21 October 2023 for a term concluding on 16 October 2027.7 13 He did not complete his term because the Minister for Local Government replaced the Council with Commissioners on 2 September 2025. The Commissioners were appointed because more than half of the Council became vacant following the resignation of the Mayor and four Councillors between October 2024 and August 2025.8 14 It is not in dispute that Mr Blanco was an elected member of the Council at the time of the allegations forming the basis of this application.9 Mr Blanco's actions forming the basis of the alleged breach 15 On 11 October 2024, the Council held a Special Council Meeting (the Special Council Meeting) where it considered and discussed Agenda Item 8, being a Notice of Motion regarding the use of COVID-19 vaccines. 16 Agenda Item 8 contained information and recommendations for the Council to consider undertaking various actions in relation to notification of other Councils of information about the use of the vaccines. 17 Item 2(C) of the Notice of Motion (the Item 2(C) Motion) stated: That Council forthwith circulate to all other Australian Local Government Councils and Shires a copy of the Correspondence appearing at Annexure 3. 18 The correspondence at Annexure 3 expressed the concerns of the Council with regard to the COVID-19 vaccine (the Council Vaccine 7https://www.elections.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/waec/lg_elections/PDF/Town%20of%20Port%20Hedlan d%20-%20Election%20Results%20-%20Noticeboard%20(2023).pdf 8https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/Cook%20Labor%20Government/Commissioners- appointed-to-the-Town-of-Port-Hedland-20250902. 9 Exhibit 1, page 556, para 5. -- 6 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 7 Concerns Correspondence). The nominated signatory of the correspondence was the CEO on behalf of the Council. 19 During the course of the Special Council Meeting on 11 October 2024, the Item 2(C) Motion was adopted by way of Council resolution (the Item 2(C) Resolution). 20 Between 11 and 24 October 2024, the CEO of the Council implemented the Item 2(C) Resolution by sending the Council Vaccine Concerns Correspondence to every Council and Shire in Australia. 21 After the Special Council Meeting, Mr Blanco formed the view that the Item 2(C) Resolution was inadequate because it did not require the Council Vaccine Concerns Correspondence to be individually sent to each Councillor and/or Mayor in Australia.10 22 On 23 October 2024 Mr Blanco acted on his concerns by sending an email to multiple Councils and individual Councillors throughout Australia attaching correspondence authored by him informing them of the Item 2(C) Resolution (the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence). 23 The Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence:11 (a) stated that Mr Blanco was a currently serving Councillor and former Mayor of the Council, but was sending the correspondence in his personal capacity; (b) informed the recipients of the Item 2(C) Resolution; (c) noted that due to an 'unfortunate oversight' the Item 2(C) Resolution only required the Council Vaccine Concerns Correspondence to be delivered to 'all Australian Council and Shire Administrations'; (d) expressed his view that 'all Councillors across our nation deserve to receive this material'; and (e) attached an unsigned copy of the Council Vaccine Concerns Correspondence. 10 Exhibit 1, page 39, para 46.1. 11 Exhibit 1, pages 570 - 573. -- 7 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 8 24 The Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence was sent without the knowledge or authorisation of the Council or the CEO. 25 On 6 November 2024, the CEO lodged a complaint with the Panel alleging that by sending the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence, Mr Blanco had committed a minor breach of s 5.107(1) and (2) of the old LG Act by contravening Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code Regulations because the correspondence (the Complaint):12 informed all recipients of a decision of Council at a Special Council Meeting held on 11 October 2024, despite the implementation of the resolutions of Council being a responsibility of the CEO/Administration and as directed in a number of the motions. 26 On 19 December 2024, the Panel determined that Mr Blanco had breached Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code Regulations, as alleged in the Complaint. 27 By email dated 20 March 2025, Mr Blanco was notified of the finding and invited to make submissions on how the Panel should deal with the breach. Mr Blanco did not respond because he was having technological difficulties and did not receive the email. 28 On 25 March 2025, the Panel sent a follow up email to Mr Blanco requesting that he submit his written submissions regarding how the breach should be dealt with. The Panel said that if they did not receive a response by 4 April 2025, they would deal with the matter without a submission from Mr Blanco. Once again, Mr Blanco did not respond because he did not get the email due to technological difficulties. 29 On 7 April 2025, the Panel informed Mr Blanco that as they had not received a response, they would deal with the matter without a submission from him. Again, Mr Blanco did not respond because he did not get the email due to technological difficulties. 30 On 19 June 2025, the Panel handed down a sanction pursuant to s 5.110(6)(b)(i), s 5.110(6)(b)(ii) and s 5.110(6)(c) of the old LG Act by ordering that Mr Blanco: (a) be publicly censured in accordance with the terms stated in the order; and 12 Exhibit 1, page 6. -- 8 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 9 (b) make a public apology in accordance with the terms stated in the order. 31 On 8 July 2025, Mr Blanco lodged his Review Application with this Tribunal pursuant to s 5.125 of the old LG Act. In it, he seeks review of the decision of the Panel that he committed a minor breach of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code Regulations, and he also seeks review of the sanction imposed. The legislative Framework The Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine the Review Application 32 Section 13(1) of the SAT Act13 gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to deal with a matter if a provision of an enabling Act enables an application to be made to the Tribunal. An enabling act is defined in s 3 of the SAT Act to mean: … another Act, or a portion of another Act, under which jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal and, if relevant, it includes subsidiary legislation under that other Act. 33 If the Tribunal has jurisdiction, the following principles are relevant: (a) The Review Application should be determined on a de novo basis;14 (b) All material relevant to the Review Application should be considered, regardless of whether or not it was before the Panel at the time their decision was made;15 and (c) The purpose of the Review Application is to produce the correct and preferable decision at the time when the Tribunal is hearing the proceeding, not at some other time.16 34 After reaching a conclusion in relation to the Review Application I may affirm the decision, vary the decision or set aside the decision and either substitute my own decision or send the matter back for re-consideration by the Panel.17 13 Intervenor's further written submissions dated 1 May 2026, para 2. 14 SAT Act, s 27(1). 15 SAT Act, s 27(1). 16 SAT Act, s 27(2). 17 SAT Act, s 29(3). -- 9 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 10 Which version of the LG Act confers jurisdiction? 35 During this proceeding, relevant parts of the LG Act underwent significant legislative change. Notably, the Panel was replaced by a Local Government Inspector who assumed responsibility for determining complaints about councillor conduct. The legislative amendments also resulted in new requirements as to the handling of behavioural complaints18 and there were significant changes to the terminology used in relation to breaches.19 36 As a consequence, the Tribunal must determine as a threshold issue, which version of the LG Act should apply to its consideration of the complaints about Mr Blanco's conduct. This requires an analysis of the interaction between the old LG Act20 and the amended LG Act,21 accompanied by consideration of their interrelationship with the SAT Act and informed by the relevant provisions of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) (the Interpretation Act). The old LG Act 37 At the time the Review Application was lodged on 8 July 2025, the Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine the application came from s 5.125 of the old LG Act which gave a party the right to apply to the Tribunal for a review of the Panel decision. 38 The alleged breaches were then determined pursuant to s 5.110 and Schedule 5.1. The amended LG Act 39 As noted above at [35], between the lodgement of the Review Application and the final hearing of the proceeding on 22 January 2026, the old LG Act was amended via the Local Government Amendment Act 2024 (WA) (the 2024 Amendment Act). The 2024 Amendment Act was passed in stages, with the provisions affecting minor breaches becoming operational on 1 January 2026. 18 See Part 8A of the LG Act. 19 For example, 'minor breaches' were replaced with the term 'conduct breaches'. 20 As was in force as at 31 December 2025. 21 As was in force as of 1 January 2026. -- 10 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 11 40 Section 71 of the 2024 Amendment Act deleted s 5.12522 from the old LG Act, thus removing the Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine Mr Blanco's Review Application in reliance on that provision.23 41 However, as is the standard occurrence, transitional provisions were included in the amended LG Act which provide for the continuation of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The transitional provisions are contained in Schedule 9.3 of the amended LG Act. 42 Both parties submit that based on the transitional provisions in Schedule 9.3 of the amended LG Act, that notwithstanding the legislative amendments that have occurred, the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the Review Application is maintained, and it should be determined in conformity with the old LG Act. I agree. 43 Clause 2 of Schedule 9.3 provides that nothing in that Schedule limits the operation of the Interpretation Act. This provision must be read by reference to s 37 of the Interpretation Act entitled 'General savings on repeal' which relevantly provides that unless the amended LG Act expressly provides, the rights that arose under proceedings initiated under the old LG Act are not affected. 44 Of specific relevance is s 37(1)(f) of the Interpretation Act, which states that: (1) Where a written law repeals an enactment, the repeal does not, unless the contrary intention appears - … (f) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, interest, title, power, privilege, status, capacity, duty, obligation, liability, burden of proof, penalty or forfeiture, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced, and any such penalty or forfeiture may be imposed and enforced as if the repealing written law had not been passed or made. 45 Applying these provisions, Mr Blanco's Review Application should be assessed in conformity with s 5.110 and Schedule 5.1 of the old LG Act. 22 The entire minor breach/behavioural code was deleted by virtue of the deletion of sections 5.107 - 5.125. 23 Section 5.125 was replaced by Pt 8A, LG Act. -- 11 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 12 46 In the event that Mr Blanco is found to have committed a minor breach, cl 74(1) of Schedule 9.3 operates to incorporate that finding into the amended LG Act. It states: A minor breach found before amendment day or under clause 73 to have been committed is taken to have been found to be a conduct breach for the purposes of this Act. 47 Applying the above to Mr Blanco's Review Application, if the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Panel the 'minor breach' is to characterised as a 'conduct breach' for the purposes of the amended LG Act. 48 I note that the intervenor also helpfully traversed the transitional provisions at clauses 73 - 74 of Schedule 9.3 of the amended LG Act as further support for the contention that the old LG Act continues to apply to the Review Application. 49 Given my conclusion above, it is not necessary to consider these provisions in detail. However, I do make the following observations about their operation. 50 Clause 73 of the amended LG Act provides that complaints that had been received by the Panel but not finalised by 1 January 2026 (being the day that s 71 of the 2024 amendment Act came into operation), are characterised as 'Pending conduct matters'.24 51 Clause 73(4) of Schedule 9.3 provides that a review application involving a minor breach25 is to be heard and determined by the Tribunal in conformity with old s 5.125.26 Section 5.125 in turn provides that a party may apply to the Tribunal for a review of a Panel decision to make an order under s 5.110(6), dealing with a complaint of a minor breach.27 52 Notably, 'Pending conduct matters' are limited in scope to complaints being dealt with by the Panel at the time of amendment day, not review applications before the Tribunal at this time. As such, this provision is not relevant to Mr Blanco's Review Application. 24 Amended LG Act, cl 73 of Schedule 9.3. 25 The approach adopted in relation to minor breaches is different to that for recurrent or serious breaches in that they are required by the transitional provisions to be dealt with under the amended LG Act. 26 See Schedule 9.3, cl 72(1) where the definition of 'old section' provides that [Old section 5.125] means a section of [the LG Act] as in force immediately before amendment day. 27 Old LG Act, s 5.110(6). -- 12 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 13 How are Councillor conduct standards incorporated into the old LG Act? 53 Part 5, (Administration) of the old LG Act provides for the prescribing of a model code of conduct for Councillors.28 The Model Code Regulations are created pursuant to this provision as a generic code applicable to all Councillors across Western Australia. How do the Model Code Regulations operate? 54 The Model Code Regulations commenced on 3 February 2021. They were created from the power in s 5.103(1) of the old LG Act which provides that the model code of conduct for Council members, committee members and candidates will be prescribed in Regulations and include requirements relating to behaviour.29 55 The requirements as to behaviour of Councillors is in 'specified rules of conduct'30 defined as 'having the meaning given in s 5.102A'. Section 5.102A states: rule of conduct means a provision of the model code that is specified in the model code to be a rule of conduct. 56 The Model Code Regulations were subsequently adopted31 by the Council on 28 April 2021, by way of document entitled 'Town of Port Hedland Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates' (the PH Model Code).32 57 Clause 19 of the PH Model Code states that a Council member is not to contribute to the administration of the local government unless authorised to do so. A contravention of this clause is characterised as a minor breach.33 58 The Model Code Regulations have transitioned across to the amended LG Act without alteration. Therefore, they and the PH Model Code continue to apply to Mr Blanco's conduct. 28 Old LG Act, s 5.103. 29 Old LG Act, s 5.103(2)(b) and s 5.103(3)(a). 30 Old LG Act, s 5.103(2)(c). 31 As they are required to be by old LG Act, s 5.104(1). 32 Exhibit 1, page 44. 33 Old LG Act, s 5.105(1)(a). -- 13 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 14 Mr Blanco's contentions Grounds of Review Application 59 In seeking review of the Panel's decision, Mr Blanco contends that the decision made was 'invalid, unreasonable and procedurally unfair' on the basis of the following seven grounds.34 (a) his actions were consistent with his statutory obligations under s 2.10(c) [sic]35 of the LG Act to 'represent electors and provide leadership to the community' (Ground 1); (b) the information he shared was already in the public domain, a fact that had been confirmed by statements made by the local government staff to members of the public prior to Mr Blanco sending the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence (Ground 2); (c) the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence served a legitimate public interest, demonstrated by the widespread community engagement and support following the Council's motion (Ground 3); (d) the sending of the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence was an exercise in the implied constitutional freedom of political communication, involving matters of national public health policy (Ground 4). In this regard, he contends that the sending of an email in his personal capacity should be excluded from the operation of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code because to do otherwise would 'impose a disproportionate burden'36 on the implied constitutional freedom of political communication and penalises elected officials' contrary to the freedom identified in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation;37 (e) the Panel's interpretation of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code and its application of the complaint process lacked transparency and denied Mr Blanco procedural fairness (Ground 5); 34 In detailing his arguments as 'Grounds', Mr Blanco uses the language of judicial review and/or appeal proceedings in the Supreme Court, not review applications in the Tribunal. For reasons of consistency, I have not amended the way in which they have been described. However, I note that strictly they are 'arguments' not grounds. 35 In his Review Application, Mr Blanco refers to old LG Act s 2.10(c), however the correct statutory reference is s 2.10(1)(c). For reasons of accuracy, I have adopted the correct reference for the remainder of these reasons. 36 Exhibit 1, page 40, para 46.8. 37 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25; (1997) 189 CLR 520 (Lange). -- 14 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 15 (f) when lodging the complaint with the Panel, the CEO failed to disclose relevant information, including that he had already sent the Council Vaccine Concerns Correspondence before Mr Blanco sent the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence. As a consequence, the complaint was incomplete and misleading (Ground 6); and (g) the complaint lodged with the Panel was 'tainted by conflict of interest and bias' because, at the relevant time, Mr Blanco had been elected Chair of the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee and a member of the CEO's Performance Review Committee. As members of these committees Mr Blanco had raised serious concerns regarding governance and non-compliant financial expenditure (Ground 7). What are the elements of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code? 60 Mr Blanco variously contends38 that the analysis of whether his actions breached Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code should be based on an interpretation of the elements of Schedule 1, cl 19 from the cases of Obourne v Johnston39 and Yates and Local Government Standards Panel.40 61 He does not dispute that he was the Councillor engaged in the conduct alleged, nor does he dispute that he was a Councillor at the relevant time or that the conduct was not authorised by either the Council or the CEO.41 62 He asserts that the matters to be determined are confined to: (a) First, whether he took on a task that contributes to the administration of the local government. In this regard, he contends that the relevant 'administrative function' was limited to implementing the Council's resolution as made on 24 October 2024 to send an official communication to the other local governments. He asserts that this role belonged to, and was carried out by, the Town's CEO, and that task had already been discharged by the CEO prior to Mr Blanco sending the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence. He says that once the CEO's 38 Exhibit 1, page 38, para 38. 39 Obourne and Johnston, Local Government Standards Panel, Complaint Number 20240418, delivered on 20 December 2024 (Johnston), para 23. 40 Yates and Local Government Standards Panel [2012] WASAT 59 (Yates) at [48] - [49], [53] - [54]. 41 Exhibit 1, page 39, para 46.4. -- 15 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 16 task was complete, there was no remaining administrative task to perform. As such, his communication, sent in his private capacity, cannot be characterised as an administrative function.42 (b) Second, his act in sending the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence did not contribute to the administration in any meaningful sense because to contribute to the task, it must 'play a part in the achievement' of the administrative outcome, which his actions did not. (Emphasis added) 63 He holds this view because his actions did not 'assist or further' the Town's correspondence given that the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence was sent separately from the Council decision, using Mr Blanco's personal resources, and performed outside of any Town process. Further, he contends that his actions did not enhance or interfere with the CEO's completed task as they were not part of that task at all.43 64 Mr Blanco distinguishes his actions from those that occurred in Johnston44 where a Schedule 1, cl 19 breach was made out in circumstances where a Councillor directly facilitated the preparation and tabling of a planning consultant's report - a task clearly within the CEO's responsibility. The intervenor's contentions 65 The intervenor contends that Mr Blanco's actions did constitute an act of administration, and as such, amounted to a contravention of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code. This in turn amounts to a minor breach of the old LG Act pursuant to s 5.105(1). In making this contention, the intervenor relies on the elements of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code. 66 The intervenor holds this view for the following reasons: (a) the language of the Item 2(C) Resolution, in conjunction with the usual role of the administration of the Council and the inclusion of the CEO as signatory of the Council Vaccine Concerns Correspondence indicate that it was the administrative task for the CEO and local government administration to implement, rather than individual Councillors;45 and 42 Exhibit 1, page 39, para 46.4. 43 Exhibit 1, page 39, para 46.4. 44 Local Government Standards Panel, Complaint Number 20240418, delivered on 20 December 2024. 45 Exhibit 1, page 561, para 44. -- 16 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 17 (b) in circumstances where Mr Blanco considered that the Item 2(C) Resolution was inadequate, he did not take any steps to bring this to the attention of the CEO or Council administration prior to disseminating the Annexure 3 Correspondence. 67 The intervenor contends that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the orders of the Panel and: (a) find that Mr Blanco has breached s 5.105(1) of the old LG Act; and (b) impose the sanction as determined appropriate by the Panel, being that he be publicly censured and make a public apology. Tribunal Consideration 68 The arguments comprising Mr Blanco's Review Application fall into the following three categories: (a) Administrative review arguments: comprising Procedural Fairness (Ground 5), Omission of Material Facts (Ground 6), Conflict of Interest and Bias (Ground 7). (b) Implied Constitutional Freedom of Political Communication argument (Ground 4). (c) the role of Councillor arguments (Grounds 1, 2 and 3). Administrative review arguments 69 I consider that Grounds 5, 6 and 7 as detailed above in [68] and following, are directed toward the Tribunal finding error with the decision of the Panel. These are not matters that the Tribunal has power to determine, and as such I will not make findings about them. 70 In coming to this conclusion, I am of the view that the statutory obligations in s 27 of the SAT Act have been applied during the hearing of this Review Application. The Tribunal made orders dated 23 July 2025 providing for the respective parties to file and serve a statement of issues, facts and contentions, plus any documents relevant to the proceeding. There were subsequent orders made on 15 October 2025 and 17 December 2025 giving the parties the opportunity to rely on evidence from nominated witnesses of their choosing. In addition, Mr Blanco was afforded an in-person hearing to orally address that material. -- 17 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 18 71 As such, to the extent that any of the deficiencies contended for by Mr Blanco did exist, they arguably have been remedied by the process adopted by the Tribunal during the determination of the Review Application. Implied Constitutional Freedom of Political Communication argument 72 Mr Blanco's submission in this regard is that Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code, if interpreted to cover Councillor's private emails, imposes a disproportionate burden on the implied constitutional freedom of political communication in that it limits a Councillor's ability to engage in independent commentary about matters of local government policy and public interest.46 He says that such an approach is not proportional in that it cannot be justified by a compelling operational need, particularly when there are less restrictive means available that achieve the same purpose.47 73 Mr Blanco also contends that a distinction should be made between the undertaking of administrative tasks (which rightly rests with the CEO and employees) as against a Councillor's right to engage in independent commentary about Council matters. In his view, it follows that Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code should be 'read down' so as to exclude his actions in sending the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence.48 74 For the following reasons, I do not accept Mr Blanco's characterisation and application of the existence of a substantive controversy arising by virtue of the implied constitutional freedom of political communication. 75 The implied constitutional freedom of political communication in relation to LG Act matters has been addressed by Senior Member Mr D Aitken of this Tribunal in Kingston,49 where at [27] and [28] he concluded that: As noted at [15] above, the implied constitutional freedom of political communication is a constitutional restriction on legislative power. It is not a personal right, and it does not extend to the consideration of subsidiary regulations (such as the Model Code). In my view, it follows, 46 Exhibit 1, page 40, para 46.8. 47 McCloy v New South Wales (2015) 257 CLR 178, as referred to in Exhibit 1, page 41, para 46.8. 48 Exhibit 1, page 40, para 46.8. 49 Kingston and Local Government Standards Panel [2025] WASAT 43 (Kingston). See also Pritchard J's consideration of the concept at [43] - [60] in Treby. -- 18 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 19 that it is not a restriction on the exercise of the functions of the Panel in dealing with complaints. Therefore, in my view, Issue 6 does not give rise to a substantive controversy which could be a matter falling within s 76(i) of the Constitution. 76 I concur with the reasoning of Senior Member Mr Aitken and respectfully adopt his analysis and conclusions. Applying the analysis in Kingston to this Review Application, Mr Blanco's argument cannot be sustained because it is not a personal right and is not a restriction on the functions of the Panel in being able to consider his emails. 77 Given this conclusion, Mr Blanco cannot rely on the implied constitutional freedom of political communication to support setting aside the Panel's decision. The role of Councillor arguments 78 These grounds (representing electors, information being in the public domain and public interest in sharing the information), are all founded in the functions that an individual performs in their role as a Councillor. Their application turns on the statutory construction of the old LG Act and an analysis of whether Mr Blanco's actions breached Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code. 79 I accept that they are relevant to the determination of the Review Application. The elements of the alleged breach 80 It is agreed between the parties that it is appropriate to consider the circumstances of the alleged breach by reference to the elements of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code. However, the parties do not agree as to what constitutes these elements.50 81 Mr Blanco, contends for a broader set of elements, based on the commentary of relevant cases such as Johnston and Yates. The intervenor contends for fewer elements, derived directly from the text of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code. 82 I prefer the approach contended for by the intervenor. His approach bases the elements on the document containing the primary source of 50 I note that the Panel relied on a further version of the elements of breach of Schedule 1, cl 19 - See Exhibit 1, page 7, paras a and b. -- 19 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 20 power, being the Model Code Regulations. This approach facilitates an interpretation based on the legislative instrument itself, not a secondary source such as a judicial officer's or Panel's interpretation as to the meaning of Schedule 1, cl 19 such as are to be found in the cases relied upon by Mr Blanco. In reaching this view, I accept that cases Mr Blanco urges me to rely upon are relevant to my consideration as to whether or not a breach of Schedule 1, cl 19 occurred. 83 Accordingly, my analysis as detailed below adopts the elements as detailed below and where, relevant, refers to Yates, Johnston and other relevant case law as identified by the parties. I also observe that in order to determine whether Mr Blanco committed a minor breach of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code, the Tribunal must be satisfied that each of the following three elements have been fulfilled. Issue 1: Did Mr Blanco commit a minor breach of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Code? Element one: the person must have been a Council member (Councillor) 84 It is not in dispute that at the time of the alleged breach, Mr Blanco held the office of Councillor on the Council of the Town of Port Hedland. Accordingly, I find that Mr Blanco was, at the relevant time, a Council member for the purposes of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code. As such, this element of the alleged breach is made out. Element two: the person took on a task that contributed to the administration of the local government 85 The central issue in this proceeding is whether Mr Blanco's actions in sending the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence was 'a task that contributed to the administration of the local government'.51 86 Mr Blanco argues for a narrow application of the phrase, particularly in so far as it relates to the use of the term 'administration'. He contends that the Tribunal's analysis of his actions should be limited to whether they impacted upon the CEO's actions in implementing the decision arising from the Item 2(C) Resolution. He further states that once the CEO had discharged that function (namely sending the Council Vaccine Concerns Correspondence), which he did on 24 October 2024, there was no 'remaining administrative action' left to complete. In his view, his communication sent in a private capacity (after the CEO had 51 Model Code, Schedule 1, cl 19. -- 20 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 21 sent the Council Vaccine Concerns Correspondence), cannot be characterised as 'part-performance of the Town's function'.52 87 The intervenor contends that the language of the Item 2(C) Resolution and the 'usual role of the administration' of the local government clearly provide that the task of sending the Council Vaccine Concerns Correspondence was an administrative task for the CEO and Council executive to implement rather than individual Councillors.53 That this is the case is evident from the provision at the bottom of the Council Vaccine Concerns Correspondence for the CEO to sign the Correspondence. 88 The meaning of the phrase 'a task that contributed to the administration of the local government' must be interpreted in accordance with the principles of statutory construction. 89 I note that the term 'administration' is not defined for the purposes of the old LG Act. As such, I turn to its plain English meaning which relevantly includes 'any body of people entrusted with administrative powers; or the duty or duties of an administrator'.54 I also note that its meaning can be informed from the text, context and purpose55 of the old LG Act, particularly Part 5 - entitled 'Administration' which relevantly includes a reference to dealing with Council meetings, and s 5.41(2)(a) which specifies that the CEO has the role of causing Council decisions to be implemented. 90 Similarly, the term 'contributed' is not defined in the old LG Act. Its ordinary meaning is 'to give in common with others'.56 91 Applying those definitions and principles within the context of the old LG Act if Mr Blanco performed any activity that added to the implementation of the Item 2C Resolution, it may be characterised as a 'a task that contributed to the administration of the local government'. 92 I have applied those definitions and principles within the context of the old LG Act to Mr Blanco's actions forming the basis of the alleged breach to consider if he undertook 'a task that contributed to the administration of the local government'. 52 Exhibit 1, page 39, para 46.4. 53 Exhibit 1, page 561, para 44. 54 Macquarie Dictionary Online (2013). 55 Mohammadi v Bethune [2018] WASCA 98 [31]. 56 Macquarie Dictionary Online (2013). -- 21 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 22 93 I am satisfied and so find that in sending the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence, Mr Blanco performed a task that contributed to the administration of the local government. I have formed this view for the following reasons: (a) The information sent in the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence attached in full the Council Vaccine Concerns Correspondence that formed part of the Item 2(C) Resolution. (b) Mr Blanco's decision to send the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence occurred shortly after the implementation of the Item 2(C) Resolution, following him forming the view that the resolution was inadequate. His objective was to augment the Item 2(C) Resolution. This is evident on the opening page of the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence,57 where Mr Blanco states: I am taking this step to inform you directly as, by an unfortunate oversight, order 2(C) of our Motion only requires the following generic form of letter (below) to be delivered to all Australian Local Government Councils and Shire Administrations. In my private capacity I formed the view that all Councillors across our nation deserve to receive this material and have the opportunity to review it thoroughly, before your Administrations receive the same, given its potential implications. (Emphasis added). (c) Mr Blanco's actions arguably replicated (albeit in the form of resolution he preferred over the one actually adopted), a task directed by the Council to be undertaken by the CEO - namely the implementation of the Item 2(C) Resolution. (d) Mr Blanco's actions aimed to impact one of the specified actions in the Item 2C Resolution, namely who the intended local government recipients of the information were to be i.e. individual Councillors as distinct from their respective administrations. This much is evident by italicisation of the words 'Administrations' and 'Councillors' in the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence.58 57 Exhibit 1, page 11. 58 Exhibit 1, pages 11 - 12. -- 22 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 23 (e) There was also a temporal element in Mr Blanco sending the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence in that he attempted to give his material to individual Councillors prior to their administrations receiving the Council Vaccine Concerns Correspondence. This is indicative of the fact that he was attempting to impact on the administrative task that the CEO was mandated by the Council. Viewed in this way, Mr Blanco's actions amount to a contribution to the administration of the Council. 94 I accept that Mr Blanco's actions did not directly interfere with the CEO's actions in implementing the Item 2(C) Resolution. However, I do not accept Mr Blanco's contention that the consideration as to whether or not he breached Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code should be limited to the impact if any, on the CEO's task in implementing the Item 2C Resolution. That is too narrow a construct. The application of Schedule 1, cl 19 is not limited to a specific task in it makes reference to 'the local government'. This reference is broad enough to incorporate any task performed that contributes to the administration of the relevant Council, regardless of when it occurs. 95 Neither does it assist Mr Blanco that he purported to send the correspondence in his personal capacity. This issue has previously been addressed by this Tribunal in the case of Re and Local Government Standards Panel59 where it was concluded by his Honour Judge Sharp that a Councillor sending an email from a private email address does not preclude them making use of their office as a Councillor in doing so. I respectfully agree with that analysis. 96 I also note that Mr Blanco referred to his role as a Councillor and former Mayor in the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence. This undermines his assertion that the email was sent in his personal capacity. 97 Mr Blanco also argues that his actions do not amount to a contravention of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code because they are consistent with statutory obligations under s 2.10(1)(c) to facilitate communications with the community about Council decisions. He also makes reference to fulfilling his statutory obligation to represent electors as detailed in s 2.10(1)(a) of the old LG Act. 59 Re and Local Government Standards Panel [2011] WASAT 108 at [28]. See also Milner and Local Government Standards Panel [2021] WASAT 103 (6 August 2021) at [53]. -- 23 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 24 98 I do not accept either of these assertions. The individual obligations sought to be relied upon by Mr Blanco must be read in the context of the whole LG Act (which delineates the different roles of the CEO and the Council) and the Act's intent of establishing a framework of governance of a local government. Accordingly, any actions taken pursuant to these sub-provisions cannot be considered in isolation but rather must be read in the context of all the requirements of the old LG Act, including the prohibition on Councillors contributing to the administration of the local government. 99 Further, the sub-provisions in s 2.10 of the old LA Act are a composite of the obligations of a Councillor when performing their role. Absent some reason to the contrary, (which I cannot find), the word 'and' that exists between each sub-provision should be given it usual meaning thus applying a conjunctive meaning to each sub-provision.60 As such, each sub-provision should be read as part of a cohesive whole of s 2.10(1), which includes acting consistently with the requirements in s 2.7(3) to keep the Council's governing role separate from the CEO's executive role. 100 Viewed in the context of these statutory obligations, the information contained in the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence goes beyond facilitating communication about a Council decision given that it includes material related to an alternative form of the Item 2(C) Resolution. Neither can it be characterised as performing a function that represents the interests of electors in conformity with the requirements of the old LG Act. Element three: the local government or the CEO did not authorise the task to be undertaken 101 It is conceded as between the parties that Mr Blanco's actions were not authorised. 102 Accordingly, I find that Mr Blanco's actions in sending out the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence were not authorised by either the Council or the CEO. As such, this element is made out. 103 I also note for completeness that there is no assertion from either party that Mr Blanco's actions were undertaken as part of the 60 See Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CQW17 [2018] FCAFC 110; (2018) 264 FCR 249; 162 ALD 427 at [27], [36] as referred to in Pearce DC, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2024; Chapter 2 - Approaches to the interpretation of legislation. -- 24 of 25 -- [2026] WASAT 96 Page 25 deliberations at a Council meeting. Therefore, the statutory exemption provided for at Schedule 1, cl 19(2) is not relevant to this proceeding. Conclusion 104 For the reasons detailed above, I have concluded that Mr Blanco's actions in distributing the Blanco Vaccine Concerns Correspondence does constitute a breach of Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Model Code. The old LG Act deems a breach of this kind to be a minor breach of s 5.105(1)(a) of the Act, which by virtue of cl 74 of Schedule 9.3 of the amended LG Act is found to be a conduct breach. Issue 2: What is the appropriate sanction(s) to impose? 105 I am cognisant that Mr Blanco contends that he was denied the opportunity to provide submissions to the Panel with regard to the sanction to be imposed. Accordingly, as a matter of natural justice, I will provide him with this opportunity as part of the Tribunal process. Orders The Tribunal orders: 1. The decision of the Local Government Standards Panel dated 20 March 2025 that the applicant committed a minor breach of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) by contravening Schedule 1, cl 19 of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA) is affirmed. 2. By 31 August 2026, the parties shall file (lodge) with the Tribunal and give to the other party written submissions regarding an appropriate sanction. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MS J HEBITON, MEMBER 14 AUGUST 2026 -- 25 of 25 --