Town of Port Hedland council vote to sue WA Government over vaccination mandates

A Pilbara council is set to take the WA Government to the Supreme Court to challenge the State’s ongoing vaccination mandates. Town of Port Hedland councillors on May 11 passed three of four motions first raised by electors at an April 12 special electors meeting, attended by approximately 130 people. The motions sought for the Town to apply to the Supreme Court of Western Australia for a judicial review of a number of emergency declarations made in response to the global pandemic, between March 2020 and April 2022. The focus of the motions were to fight against vaccination mandates, which require around 75 per cent of WA workers be fully vaccinated to stay employed. Despite legal advice cautioning against carrying the motions, councillors voted 5-3 in favour of three motions. “It is arguable that the proceedings of the nature proposed are not within the scope of the Town’s general function as they do not directly pertain to the good government of persons in the Towns district, but rather relate to broader matters of State Government policy that are not within the legislative remit of the Town,” legal advice contained within the meeting agenda said. Town of Port Hedland mayor Peter Carter, who has been embroiled in controversy recently after he was seen being fed strawberries by a woman in a Vietnam hotel room during an online meeting, voted against all motions. Councillor David Eckhart and Deputy Mayor Tim Turner also voted against all motions. Councillor Jan Gillingham said she chose to vote for the motions because she was “doing it for all Australians”, while councillor Ash Christensen compared fighting against mandates to the Anzac’s battle of Gallipoli. “I’m not afraid of a fight. You ask anyone, I will pick more fights than I should. I’m a little chihuahua that picks a pitbull, cos (sic) why not? I’m up for a fight,” Cr Christensen said. “If we go back to that big incident on the beach (Gallipoli) that took place, which created the Anzac legend... it was one of the biggest mistakes the Australian military has ever made. “It was a mistake to land on that beach and get desecrated(sic) the way they did, and who pays that sacrifice? “$500,000 is not enough to get us what we want, we are storming the beach with half the people we need.” The fourth motion, which sought to adjust the local government’s 2021/22 budget to allocate $500,000 to the legal battle, was knocked back, with councillors arguing more time was needed to decide on a dollar figure for the lawsuit. During the course of the three-and-a-half hour special council meeting, a number of internet conspiracy theories were promoted by members of the public. One member of the public, who the North West Telegraph has chosen not to name, said the Victorian Government had outlawed residents growing their own produce in the back garden. “Today the COVID-19 gene therapy injection is what we’re being dictated to(sic), tomorrow our WA State Government could follow in the footsteps of Victoria, where you are now unable to grow your own produce and food to be self-sustainable,” the community member said. Her claims, as the AAP FactCheck put it, are a load of crop. There is nothing in the Bill to stop Victorians growing their own food and an expert told AAP FactCheck the legislation is instead about providing a way of dealing with potential biodiversity issues. Another member of the public claimed signs installed around town in an effort to encourage vaccine uptake had caused the town “a lot of anxiety and depression”. A Town of Port Hedland spokesperson said the local government’s chief executive had approached WA’s Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries on how to resource the legal actions. “Given the 2021-22 town budget does not have an allocation for such action, council must approve any additional expenditure through an additional resolution,” the spokeswoman said. “As this did not occur at the special council meeting on Wednesday night, an agenda item will be brought to an upcoming council meeting to deal with this matter. This will allow council time to consider advice and recommendations on appropriate levels of funding to resource such actions to meet the intent of the resolutions.”