Zempilas apologises for campaign content on Perth lord mayor Facebook page
Perth lord mayor-turned-Opposition Leader Basil Zempilas has formally apologised for breaching local government rules after using his council-linked social media profile in his campaign for state government.
Zempilas stepped down as lord mayor as soon as his tight victory in Churchlands for the WA Liberals was confirmed in March, which complicated a Local Government Standards Panel ruling that he provide a public apology for the minor breach.
His apology was published on the City of Perth's Facebook page late Tuesday afternoon.
'A complaint was made to the Local Government Standards Panel, in which is (sic) was alleged that I contravened [local government regulations], when I did not maintain an appropriate division between my position as Lord Mayor of the City of Perth and a Liberal candidate for pre-selection in certain campaign material,' Zempilas said in the post.
'The panel found that I breached Regulation 18 as my conduct was improper and undertaken for my own personal advantage.
'I acknowledge that I should not have used my title of Lord Mayor in such a manner and I now apologise to the public and my fellow councillors.'
WAtoday understands the complaint was lodged in early 2024 by Naijiao 'Jason' Bo, a former City of Perth candidate who ran alongside lord mayoral hopeful Sandy Anghie in 2023.
The panel ordered Zempilas to issue a public apology in the council chamber after the minor breach of local government rules that it said blurred the line between his mayoral and candidate roles.
The deadline was April 22.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
4 hours ago
- The Age
Tasmania election date confirmed as Devils, AFL search for certainty
Tasmania's state election, which could decide the future of Hobart's controversial AFL stadium and the Tasmania Devils AFL team, will be decided on July 19. Premier Jeremy Rockliff on Wednesday night visited state governor Barbara Baker, who – after a 48-hour delay – will call an election. It comes after days of political uncertainty that followed when the state's parliament passed a motion of no-confidence in Rockliff as state leader. Liberal Rockliff and Opposition Leader Dean Winter have both publicly pledged their support for the stadium and the creation of the Devils as the AFL's 19th team. However, the recent week of political upheaval has left senior figures at the AFL and some club presidents with serious concerns. Rockliff released a statement late on Wednesday evening, begging Tasmanians to stick with his Liberal government to guarantee stability in the state. 'Another election is not what I wanted, and I know that it's not what Tasmanians wanted. But it was forced upon us by the leader of the opposition. So, let's get on with it. Our team is building a better Tasmania. 'We are building a better health care system, better schools and roads and keeping Tasmanians safe. Our economy is strong, unemployment low, and our businesses are the most confident in the nation.' While a fresh election is far from what the AFL wanted, a date at least provides some clarity for league representatives, some of whom were constantly checking their phones at Crown on Wednesday night at the Australian Football Hall of Fame dinner.
Perth Now
16 hours ago
- Perth Now
Reynolds' fresh target in Higgins lawsuit
Linda Reynolds has turned her attention to former Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus in her bid to sue the Commonwealth over its compensation payment to Brittany Higgins, as the nation's anti-corruption agency revealed there was 'no corruption issue' in the payment. The retiring former Liberal minister in May launched action in the Federal Court against the Commonwealth, with the crux of the claim over the $2.4m compensation payment to Brittany Higgins in 2022. Senator Reynolds argued the payment was 'publicly affirming' of Ms Higgins allegations against her that she didn't support her former staffer when she alleged she was raped by Bruce Lehrmann. Brittany Higgins was paid a $2.4m compensation payment. NewsWire / Jeremy Piper Credit: News Corp Australia The Federal Court has found Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. A criminal trial was aborted due juror misconduct and a charge against him was dropped. Mr Lehrmann has always denied the allegation and is appealing the Federal Court's finding. An amended version of Ms Reynolds statement of claim was filed on Wednesday, just a day before the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) said there was 'no corruption issue' in the $2.4m payment. The NACC on Thursday announced there was 'no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official'. Senator Reynolds' amended statement of claim was made public late on Thursday afternoon. Linda Reynolds has amended her statement of claim. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Among the changes is a reference to a speech by Mr Dreyfus the then Attorney-General made to parliament on March 15, 2021. Mr Dreyfus is not a party to the claim. Mr Dreyfus recounted to the House of Representatives a speech by Ms Higgins just outside Parliament House, where she told a large crowd she was raped inside the building by a colleague, and how her story was 'a painful reminder to women that it can happen in Parliament House and can truly happen anywhere'. 'If a woman cannot feel safe from rape in Parliament House, a veritable fortress ringed with security cameras, with entrances protected by armed guards and with Federal Police officers on duty inside, where can women feel safe?' Mr Dreyfus told the House of Representatives, according to a transcript excerpt in the claim. 'How strong is the rule of law if it isn't able to protect a young woman working in the ministerial wing of Parliament House?' The amended statement of claim argued Senator Reynolds had suffered loss and damage as a result of Mr Dreyfus' conduct, including denying her the opportunity to rebut Ms Higgins' allegation 'in the appropriate forum'. Former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia It also argues Mr Dreyfus 'enabled and encouraged the falsity of Ms Higgins' claim to be maintained by Ms Higgins'. HWL Ebsworth, which acted on the Commonwealth's behalf, is also being sued by Senator Reynolds for negligence. Lawyers on behalf of Senator Reynolds argued HWLE breached its fiduciary duty to her by excluding her from the mediation conference where the $2.4m settlement was reached, and failing to conduct independent investigations to establish if there was 'at least a meaningful prospect of liability' by Ms Higgins. However, similar alleged breaches initially put forth against the Commonwealth were withdrawn in the amended document, with it now largely focusing on allegations of Mr Dreyfus' misfeasance of public office and alleged breaches of HWLE. Mr Dreyfus has been contacted for comment. He earlier welcomed NACC's statement. 'The NACC has conclusively found there was no improper interference by any Commonwealth official at any stage,' Mr Dreyfus said. 'I regret the baseless allegation of corruption has been so widely publicised ahead of this finding and hope future matters can be resolved in a more timely manner. 'I also regret any further distress caused to Ms Higgins as a result of this matter.'
The Advertiser
16 hours ago
- The Advertiser
How Australia's 'no-worries' approach has led our nation's defence astray
With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable.
