This discussion identifies and offers a proactive remedy to address the single biggest cause of conflict and unresolved disputation in West Australian Local Governments like the City of Melville.

The root cause being poorly written legislation legalising class discrimination.

Legislating for Failure

Instead of providing for a single universal Ethical Framework, the WA Local Government Act has cleft conduct into a three-code system under the pretext that Community Members, Elected Members and Employees have fundamentally different powers, legal obligations, and risks. A multi-code system like that legislated in the Local Government Act is a “consequence model” that causes additional harm without remedy to the original failure. The frustration felt by many residents is that the current system is designed to punish the person, but not fix or remedy the problem.

A more intelligent system is found in the “Outcome Model” also known as the “Restorative Justice” model.

Different Legal Mandates

Elected Members (The Board): Their role is strategic. In theory they set the vision, pass local laws, and represent the community. Their code focuses on public integrity, “good government” (Section 1.3), and managing conflicts of interest during public votes.
Employees (The Administration): In theory their role is operational, to provide technical advice and execute Council decisions. Their code focuses on professionalism, “duty of care” in service delivery, and the impartial use of delegated authority (e.g., signing off on a building permit).
Community Members (The Public) In theory community’s conduct in their oversight role is managed through highly structured legal avenues seeking that community feedback leads to “greater accountability” and “better decision-making” while protecting the administrative process from disruption.

Why the “Consequence Model” Fails the Community

Trivialisation: Different treatments for the same event (Employee vs. Member) make the conduct feel like a “workplace rule” rather than a violation of public trust.
No Remedy: A resident who disabled daughter cannot safely enter their property due to an improperly approved crossover doesn’t care if the responsible Director is “counselled.” They want the crossover adjusted. The current model used by the City of Melville ignores this “repair” phase.
Corrupting Compliance: When the focus is on avoiding “consequences,” the administration is seen to become defensive. They are more likely to “covertly influence” a process to ensure it looks compliant on paper to avoid a breach, rather than ensuring the outcome is actually “good government.”
Creates “unreasonable complainants” Because the original failure is never remedied, frustration in the complainants is generated and continues to manifest as increased administrative costs regardless of officer recklessness in attempting to silence complainants.

Conduct vs. Ethics: The “Single Standard” Argument

However, a sophisticated critique of the “three-code” system highlights a governance paradox: while the law separates them to define roles, that very separation creates an accountability gap where the same unethical behaviour is judged by different yardsticks.

While Ethics are the universal underlying principle of honesty, integrity, and fairness, when the Code of Conduct is split into a three-code system, conduct becomes treated as a set of “workplace rules” for employees and “political rules” for elected members and a complex-mix for community members, rather than a single Ethical Framework for everyone.

Among other risks, the three code system engenders a risk of trivialisation: for example, where an employee and an elected member both fail to disclose a conflict of interest regarding (say) a planning development, the employee faces internal HR discipline (private), while the member faces the Standards Panel (public). This “class discrimination” lead to the perception that one group is being “protected” while the other is “persecuted.”

A Single Code as a “Corruption Barrier”

A single, unified Code of Conduct for an entire local government (known as an Integrity Framework) offers several advantages in preventing “corrupting compliance”:

Unified Culture: It establishes that “Integrity is Integrity,” regardless of whether you are the CEO or a Councillor or a Community member. It removes the excuse of “that’s just how politics or the administration works.”
Consistency in Reporting: It simplifies the process for the community. Instead of navigating different reporting pathways (CEO for staff vs. Standards Panel for members etc.), there is one clear standard of behaviour for the Local Government.
Peer Accountability: A single code makes it harder for “covert influence” to occur. If everyone is bound by the same rule against “undue influence” or “improper interference,” then an officer has a stronger, shared ethical ground to refuse a councillor’s “off-the-record” request and a councillor has a stronger shared ethical ground to refuse an officer’s misleading advisory information.

Why the Split Exists (The Legal Friction)

The reason WA (and the City of Melville) maintain multiple codes isn’t necessarily ethical—it’s contractual.

The Employment Contract: Employees have a master-servant relationship with the CEO. Their conduct allegiance to the CEO is a condition of their pay-check.
The Democratic Mandate: Elected members are not employees; they are “holders of public office.” You cannot “fire” them the same way you fire a Director.
Interaction: and of course employees serve the community while elected members represent the community so all three groups are forced to interact.
The Result: This legal reality had forced different “consequence models,” which had led to the multiple legislated “consequence” codes. Waving the big stick “consequence models” has always resulted in disputation and conflict.
The Better Alternative: Adopting an “Integrity Framework” as in the “Outcome or Restorative Justice” model, changes the focus from a blaming culture to an achieving culture.

The “Assurance” Perspective

From the perspective of minimising the assurance gap, a single code provides much higher community assurance. It would signal that the City of Melville valued ethical achievement over Standards of administrative or political convenience in Conduct.

The “Outcome Model” (Restorative Justice)

In the “Outcome Model,” an outcome-focused mandate prioritises restitution and compliance over administrative punishment.

The Mandate: “The failure has occurred; the primary legal obligation is now to return the situation to its intended lawful state.” (Restorative Justice)
The Shift: Instead of just a “Minor Breach” finding against a councillor or a “Performance Management” note for an officer, the system would trigger an automatic independent review and reversal of the flawed decision. (truly early intervention”

Implementing a “Repair Mandate”

To move toward an outcome model, the City of Melville’s policies (like CP-114) would need to change their “Measure of Success”:

From: “Number of infringements issued” (lagging consequence).
To: “Percentage of non-compliances physically rectified” (timely outcome/repair).
From: “Time taken to resolve a complaint” (administrative speed).
To: “Community satisfaction with the remedial outcome” (assurance of repair).

The Reality Check

The biggest barrier to an “Outcome Model” is legal finality. Local Governments carry an irrational fear that if they admit a failure and try to “repair” it, they will automatically be sued for “damages.” One doesn’t need to dig very deep to uncover evidence of hostility driven by officer’s fear of invoking financial consequence from pursuit of an ethical outcome.

In the current climate at the City of Melville, the evidence suggests the Local Government retains fear of the loss of administrative control, but outwardly expresses financial cost as the public-facing shield.

Push-back – The Fear of Losing “Technical Monopoly”

If the City were to adopt a true Repair Model (where the outcome is measured by the affected residents), the Directorates – led by executives lose their status as the sole arbiter of what is “acceptable.”

The Shift: Administrative control relies on discretion (deciding when not to enforce).
- A mandate to “repair the failure” removes that discretion.
The Conflict: This explains why the administration recommends deferring the CP-114 review. They aren’t just saving money; they are protecting the “Master-Servant” hierarchy where the administration provides the advice and the Council (usually) “rubber stamps” it.

Financial Cost as a “Strategic Deterrent”

The City frequently cites the risk of litigation or “damages” if they were to reverse a decision to “repair” a failure.

The Reality: While the legal costs are real, they are often used to justify “Corrupting Compliance” – the practice of sticking to a flawed process because it is legally “defensible,” even if it’s ethically broken.
The Choice: They would rather pay for a “Consequence” (a lawyer or a fine) than lose the power to dictate the “result.”

The “Class Discrimination” Protection

A Repair Model (Outcome Model) would inevitably expose the multi-code system. If a “repair” is mandated, the investigation into why the repair was needed would lead directly back to the conduct of the officers or members involved.

Maintaining separate codes allows the administration to handle “failures” as internal HR matters, keeping the administrative machinery opaque to the public.

The “Assurance” Summary

The administration is likely terrified that a Repair Model would empower the community to “audit” their work in real-time. By keeping the focus on Provision (we did the job) rather than Assurance of Repair (we fixed the mess), they maintain a monopoly on the “Good Government” narrative.

Comparison of Conduct Codes

The City of Melville maintains distinct codes of conduct for different groups, purportedly to ensure accountability, professional service, and respectful community engagement. However the following table suggests there are some unaddressed conflicts of interests that need to be managed. As I believe this is the first time this has been tabulated there may be some challenges to its completeness which readers should bring to our attention.

Feature	Elected Member Code	Employee Code	Community Conduct
Primary Goal	Protect democratic integrity	Protect operational impartiality	Protect safety and civility
Primary Scope	Council members, committee members, and election candidates.	All City staff, including permanent, casual, and contract employees.	Members of the public interacting with the City online or in person.
Legal Basis	Local Government Act 1995 & Model Code Regulations 2021.	Work, Health S & Fair Work Act Managed by the CEO.	Moderation “House Rules,” unauthorised Managing Unreasonable Conduct Policy. Public Space Local Laws & Terms of Use
Key Focus	Relationships with community & each other. Public integrity, ethical decision-making, and appropriate use of council resources.	Professional standards & technical bias. Professionalism, safety, efficient service, and apolitical conduct.	Respectful interaction & lawful behaviour. Courteous interaction, safety of staff, and preventing misinformation.
Oversight, Complaint Handling	Dealt with by the City’s Behaviour Complaints Committee or the State Standards Panel.	The CEO / Internal HR. Internal disciplinary procedures overseen by City management.	City Management / Site Moderators Moderation of content (hiding/deleting) or restricted access to “e” services.
Social Media Rule	Must clarify views are personal and not represent a predetermined vote.	Use must remain apolitical and not damage the City’s reputation.	Content that is defamatory, off-topic, or includes private data is removed.
Constraint	Must not “micromanage” staff	Must provide “objective” advice	Must not use harassing or abusive language

Specific Requirements by Group

Elected Members: They are strictly prohibited from using City resources for personal tasks or election campaigns. They must not disparage the character of other members or staff in their official duties.
Employees: Staff are expected to be “apolitical and impartial,” especially on social media, to ensure they can serve the local government regardless of which members are elected.
Community Members: While open debate is encouraged on platforms like Melville Talks, the City reserves the right to remove “keyboard warrior” behaviour, trolling, or comments that endanger the safety of staff.

What this means for Community Members

While Elected Members and Employees have high-level legal and professional obligations, the Community Conduct (often found in “House Rules” or “Customer Service Charters”) focuses on keeping public discourse productive.

Behavioural Bounds: Unlike staff who must remain apolitical, community members are free to have political opinions, provided they don’t descend into defamation or threats.
Access Limits: If a community member breaches conduct (e.g., via “unreasonable conduct”), the City can legally limit their access to certain staff or premises to protect workplace safety. However the current City Policy is unauthorised and contains promotion of detrimental or inappropriate bias and discrimination by employees.
Digital Responsibility: On platforms like Melville Talks, the focus is on preventing “trolling” or the spread of private information (doxxing) that could harm other residents or staff.