How Melville Uses “Empty Signifiers” and “Double Entendres” to Evade Accountability

By the Melville Shadow Council Editorial Team

Have you ever read an official response from the City of Melville and felt like you were reading another language entirely? You aren’t alone. In fact, you are witnessing a highly coordinated administrative tactic.

In public administration and creative political analysis, we call this the deployment of “empty signifiers” and “institutional double entendres.”

When our local government wants to “mark its own homework” while appearing completely professional, it relies on a specific legal loophole: the 2026 Western Australian Local Government Act fails to provide rigid, objective public law definitions for foundational concepts like “good governance,” “merit,” or “integrity.”

Because these terms are legally empty, executive staff are given the default power to subjectively define compliance on their own terms. They fill these empty symbols with self-serving meanings, creating an administrative shield.

Below is an annotated breakdown of a typical Council Notice of Determination (Statement of Reasons). This exposes how the City uses the noble language of the 2026 reforms as a double entendre to hide the gritty reality of bureaucratic self-protection.

Exposing the Notice of Determination: What They Say vs. What It Means

1. The Executive Summary

• The Official Text: “In accordance with the roles and responsibilities defined under Section 5.41 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended 2026), the City has concluded its internal review into allegations of mismanagement.”
• The Shadow Reality: This uses the prestige of the Act as a sedative. It is designed to reassure the public that a transparent, logical process is underway, immediately setting up the executive branch as the ultimate gatekeeper of the inquiry.

2. The “Evidence-Based” Myth

• The Official Text: “The City is mandated to make all determinations on the basis of evidence and on the merits of the case. Following a thorough examination of contemporaneous records, we have found insufficient evidence to support the allegation.”
• The Institutional Double Entendre: Because primary legislation doesn’t define what an objective “merit-based assessment” actually looks like, “merit” becomes an empty signifier. To the public, it sounds fair. To the savvy bureaucrat, it is a discretionary shield. “Contemporaneous records” means the City chose to look only at the specific files the subject decided to archive—deliberately ignoring legacy data, deleted logs, or informal verbal agreements. The outcome is pre-determined by controlling what is officially allowed to be called “evidence.”

3. The “Operational Separation” Buffer

• The Official Text: “Under the 2026 separation of powers framework, the Council’s role is strictly strategic, while the CEO maintains authority over all operational matters. As this matter falls under administrative operations, no further report to the Council or the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC) is required.”
• The Institutional Double Entendre: Labelling a systemic breakdown as a mere “operational matter” is the ultimate tool for plausible deniability. It creates a buffer of ignorance. Elected Councillors can claim they were “never advised” of a scandal because it sits in the CEO’s private jurisdiction. By keeping it “operational,” they ensure the complaint never reaches the newly mandated independent ARIC chair, effectively leaving the poacher in charge of the gamekeeper’s report.

4. Weaponising “Unreasonable Conduct”

• The Official Text: “The City notes that you have submitted three inquiries over the previous six months. Under Regulation 37A, the CEO has determined that your continued correspondence now constitutes unreasonable complainant conduct.”
• The Institutional Double Entendre: Regulation 37A was designed to protect public resources from genuine harassment. Instead, the administration fills this definition on its own terms to use it as a procedural gag order. By branding a persistent whistleblower as “unreasonable,” they legally trigger a communication restriction. This allows them to shut down the inquiry entirely under the guise of “resource optimisation.”

5. The Final Action

• The Official Text: “This matter is now considered closed at the operational level. Any further disclosure of the details of this internal investigation by the complainant may be considered a breach of the confidentiality provisions of the Act.”
• The Shadow Reality: This is the final lock on the bureaucratic box. By enforcing strict confidentiality, they ensure that if they find no wrongdoing, the public never even knew there was an investigation to begin with.

The Shadow Council’s Take

This explains exactly why performance measures are missing from our council’s reports. If you publish clear, measurable metrics for “fairness” or “good governance,” you close the semantic gap that these double entendres rely on to function.

As long as the state legislation leaves these definitions empty, executive staff will continue to fill them with definitions that protect the institution rather than the ratepayer.

Call to Action: Demand Answers From Your Elected Councillors

We cannot allow the executive administration to hide behind the shield of “operational matters” while using elected councillors as a buffer of ignorance. Your ward councillors are elected to represent you, not to act as a public relations shield for corporate-speak.

Don’t let them stay silent. Copy the template below and email your elected City of Melville councillors today. Let’s force them to define what “good governance” actually means.

---

Subject: Constituent Enquiry: Integrity metrics and “Operational” transparency at the City of Melville

Dear Councillor [Insert Surname],

As a resident and ratepayer in your ward, I am writing to express my concern regarding the growing reliance on “operational separation” to deflect community scrutiny. While the 2026 local government reforms clarify the separate roles of Council and the Executive, they do not absolve elected members of their ultimate governance oversight.

I request your explicit, written response to the following three questions:

1. How do you objectively measure “Good Governance”? Given that the Act leaves terms like “merit” and “good governance” open to interpretation, what specific, measurable data do you rely on to verify that executive staff are acting in the public interest, rather than merely rubber-stamping internal compliance?
2. Where is the public reporting? Why does the City of Melville fail to publish clear, quantifiable performance measures regarding how complaints are handled and how decisions are audited?
3. Will you challenge the “Operational” shield? When systemic internal issues are hidden behind the label of “operational matters,” will you commit to exercising your strategic oversight to ensure independent review by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC), rather than leaving the administration to investigate itself?

As my representative, I look forward to your direct perspective on these matters rather than a generic statement prepared by corporate communications staff.

Kind regards,
[Your Name]
[Your Suburb / Ward]