Perth Voice Interactive

STERN new speech restrictions being considered in Bayswater would require councillors to “clearly state” they weren’t representing the views of the City of Baywater when making any public comment, even when posting family photos on Facebook. 

Some councillors were flabbergasted at the December 12 meeting, believing the proposed Communications and Social Media Policy goes a step too far.

Cr Dan Bull queried: “Does this mean that … every social media post that I make, or comment that I make or respond to on someone else’s post, requires me to put a statement that says it is my personal view only and it doesn’t necessarily represent the views of the City?” 

“I have the same question,” mayor Filomena Piffaretti echoed.

Corporate services director Kym Leahy confirmed: “Yes, that was the intent in how it was drafted.”

Cr Bull then posed: “Does it also mean that on my personal page, my personal profile, if I do a photo of me and the kids and Nys [his wife] on a family holiday, that would also require me to say the same statement?

“If I attend a public meeting … if I were to make a comment at that forum, would I also need to state that it is my personal view and does not represent the views of the city?”

Strict

Again, the director confirmed that under this strict wording: “Yes,” in both cases.

The restrictive wording came from a draft version of the policy that had been unanimously flagged as too onerous by councillors at a behind-closed-doors discussion earlier this year.

Staff had recommended removing it, instead just inserting a rule saying councillors must not “imply that the comment or content necessarily represents the views of the City”, with standard practice dictating that only the mayor can speak on behalf of the city.

But when it came to the vote on December 12 councillor Josh Eveson moved to restore the earlier stricter version, and councillor Steven Ostaszewskyj seconded the motion.

Cr Eveson said the strict version was “very clear and unambiguous”. 

Deputy mayor Elli Petersen-Pik spoke against Cr Eveson’s motion to use the more severe wording, saying, “I’m not aware of any local government that has such a requirement on elected members to make such a comment under each comment on social media. It’s too onerous. Every elected member should be aware that if they forget that, it would be a breach of the policy, and a complaint could be served against them.”

Crs Bull and Petersen-Pik wanted to deal with it immediately and scrap the harsh version, but the majority voted to defer the decision till next year to give more time to work out the wording.

by DAVID BELL