You should never let an arsonist play with matches or a local government make
its own local laws which are already offences in common or criminal law.
Time and time again critics of local government tell administrators and councillors not to make up local laws, by-laws, statutes. principles and guidelines as a knee-jerk reaction to situations they have no ability to handle, or should keep their noses out of.
Too often these laws such as the new Local Government Property Amendment Local Law 2018 are a cut-and-paste miasma with many questioning what T.F does it mean and who T.F will actually enforce it.
One absolute classic is in Division 4-Aerodrome (Airport) 5.6 regarding the restrictions the shire places on you when you and your beloved pooch arrive at Terminal 2, at York International Airport.
Your dog is not allowed unless-
(a) the animal is being air freighted from the aerodrome
(b) the animal has been air freighted to the aerodrome
(c) the person is authorised to do so by the local government (read Shire of York here.)
(probably as a sniffer-dog to locate the stash of meth-amphetamines)
You can probably add goats, chooks, cattle and sheep to those not permitted. However there may be sniffer-pigs.
You could probably ask David Wallace or your local councillor- or your cheery administrator, such as Paul Martin, what airport are they referring to- and why do they have such a fetish about when, where, how, why and with what aeroplanes fly within shire airspace when it would be in everyone’s best interest if they left it to the Department of Civil Aviation and its determination of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. (Aeronautical airspace is Commonwealth property and the Shire of York owns bugger-all of it.)
In Part 1 Clause 1.2, the definition of ‘Boat” has been deleted. Possibly because most sane people would not put a boat in the murky depths of the Avon River in and around York.
The rest seems to be mainly targeting aquatic facilities such as the dilapidated York Swimming Pool and the Health Act so they can charge culprits $125 who are caught peeing in the pool- beyond a reasonable doubt.
‘Reasonable’ seems to be a Shire of York buzz-word.
So what is the Shire’s definition of a reasonable person and what could be considered by the shire of York as deleterious to the reasonable physical, mental or social well being of a person (whether reasonable or not)?
Is a reasonable person considered to be someone who is taking their medication to combat chronic schizophrenia or has their Post Traumatic Stress Disorder under control?
Who then is the arbiter of reasonable, Mr. Wallace? Mr. Martin? Or both- as each one is a signatory to the documents?
The Shire of York uses the word ‘nuisance’ to define a person who it thinks is not a reasonable person and who needs to be fined at least $125 for their indiscressions and/or inappropriateness for the 13 prescribed offenses.
So the decision is if a person stands up at the next monthly Council Meeting and asks Paul Martin ‘has he found another job yet?’ is he being a nuisance? and be fined $125 under the clause ‘all other offences not specified’?
In 12 Part 3 Clause 3.9 in subclause (2) the Latin term ‘Mutatis Mutandis’ has been substituted for ‘as though it were a substitute for a permit’ because no-one at the Shire of York speaks Latin.
It sounds very much like a deadly disease but Mutatis Mutandis sort of means something that is very much the same but with some differences. So ‘as though it were a substitute for a permit’ could mean it might be a substitute for a permit, but actually is not and is to be determined by the Shire of York at your expense.
Time and time again critics of local government tell administrators and councillors not to make up local laws, by-laws, statutes. principles and guidelines as a knee-jerk reaction to situations they have no ability to handle, or should keep their noses out of.
Too often these laws such as the new Local Government Property Amendment Local Law 2018 are a cut-and-paste miasma with many questioning what T.F does it mean and who T.F will actually enforce it.
One absolute classic is in Division 4-Aerodrome (Airport) 5.6 regarding the restrictions the shire places on you when you and your beloved pooch arrive at Terminal 2, at York International Airport.
Your dog is not allowed unless-
(a) the animal is being air freighted from the aerodrome
(b) the animal has been air freighted to the aerodrome
(c) the person is authorised to do so by the local government (read Shire of York here.)
(probably as a sniffer-dog to locate the stash of meth-amphetamines)
You can probably add goats, chooks, cattle and sheep to those not permitted. However there may be sniffer-pigs.
You could probably ask David Wallace or your local councillor- or your cheery administrator, such as Paul Martin, what airport are they referring to- and why do they have such a fetish about when, where, how, why and with what aeroplanes fly within shire airspace when it would be in everyone’s best interest if they left it to the Department of Civil Aviation and its determination of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. (Aeronautical airspace is Commonwealth property and the Shire of York owns bugger-all of it.)
In Part 1 Clause 1.2, the definition of ‘Boat” has been deleted. Possibly because most sane people would not put a boat in the murky depths of the Avon River in and around York.
The rest seems to be mainly targeting aquatic facilities such as the dilapidated York Swimming Pool and the Health Act so they can charge culprits $125 who are caught peeing in the pool- beyond a reasonable doubt.
‘Reasonable’ seems to be a Shire of York buzz-word.
So what is the Shire’s definition of a reasonable person and what could be considered by the shire of York as deleterious to the reasonable physical, mental or social well being of a person (whether reasonable or not)?
Is a reasonable person considered to be someone who is taking their medication to combat chronic schizophrenia or has their Post Traumatic Stress Disorder under control?
Who then is the arbiter of reasonable, Mr. Wallace? Mr. Martin? Or both- as each one is a signatory to the documents?
The Shire of York uses the word ‘nuisance’ to define a person who it thinks is not a reasonable person and who needs to be fined at least $125 for their indiscressions and/or inappropriateness for the 13 prescribed offenses.
So the decision is if a person stands up at the next monthly Council Meeting and asks Paul Martin ‘has he found another job yet?’ is he being a nuisance? and be fined $125 under the clause ‘all other offences not specified’?
In 12 Part 3 Clause 3.9 in subclause (2) the Latin term ‘Mutatis Mutandis’ has been substituted for ‘as though it were a substitute for a permit’ because no-one at the Shire of York speaks Latin.
It sounds very much like a deadly disease but Mutatis Mutandis sort of means something that is very much the same but with some differences. So ‘as though it were a substitute for a permit’ could mean it might be a substitute for a permit, but actually is not and is to be determined by the Shire of York at your expense.
The Shire of York is more than happy to call expenses ‘Costs’ which includes its administrative costs but does not explain what they actually are.
Just so you know the Xmas Grinch has arrived- you are not allowed to ‘ conduct or take part in any gambling game, contest or bet’ presumably on local government property so forget Bingo at the Town Hall and the staff Melbourne Cup Sweep in the Shire of York Offices.
Despite Same Sex Marraige becoming law. The Shire of York does not appear to have moved with the times.
Transgender people beware-the highly competent designated authority from the Shire of York may fine you $125 if this reasonable person believes you have acted unreasonably by ‘ entering a toilet block or change room facility of the opposite gender’ because you identify with a gender and he or she does not agree with your choice.
To cap it all off the Shire of York intends to fine you $125 for being under the influence of alcohol or a prohibited drug.
When , where, how and who is going to arrest you, breathalyse or drug test you to establish you are drunk or drugged to the eyeballs is unknown.
In the case of a drug offence- this could well be a criminal offense with penalties far greater than $125.
The most offensive offense listed is , Behaviour detrimental to property’. You can assume this means local government property and can be anything from graffiti to urinating on the grass in Peace Park. The fine is $350.
The reason for the re-jigging of an old act is obtuse. If it is anything to do with inappropriate behaviour on government rather than public property then there is an easy fix.
It is called an Indecent Act with intent to offend. The word public does not crack a mention.
Someone ‘screwed-up bigtime’!
You are being narrow-minded David regarding Division 4-Aerodrome (Airport), Shire of York Local Government Property Amendment Local Law 2018. These laws have a place, otherwise how is the Shire expected to manage situations such as Pistol and Boo, the Yorkshire terriers belonging to some reputedly famous Hollywood movie star named Johnny Depp?
ReplyDeleteBehaviour detrimental to property’.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean another senior staff position on the payroll? Local Behavioural Controller.