Port Hedland Council revokes decision to sue State Government over vax mandates

After nearly three hours of public statements that touched on debunked conspiracy theories, gene manipulation and religious wrath, the Port Hedland council has revoked its decision to sue the State Government over vaccine mandates. The meeting, held at the Port Hedland Civic Chambers on June 15, sought to walk back the three motions passed at a May 11 council meeting to fight against vaccination mandates for workers in Western Australia. Town of Port Hedland mayor Peter Carter brought forward a motion on June 1 for council to overturn the motions, however the meeting was adjourned to give councillors time to get legal advice. On June 15, Mr Carter again brought forward the motion to revoke the decision 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. In the agenda, Mr Carter stated he was concerned the resolutions did not adequately consider the potential for this matter to be beyond the powers of the Town. The council endorsed the motion to scrap the May 11 decision 6-3, with councillors Ash Christensen — who had compared taking up the fight against mandates to Anzacs storming the beach in Gallipoli — and Laveni Bennett changing their minds after previously endorsing the plans. During the meeting, deputy mayor Tim Turner said the local community just wanted to get back to business. “At no point in time has anyone from the State Government spoken to me or tried to alter my position,” he said. Mr Turner raised concerns that the second motion — which sought council apply to the Supreme Court of Western Australia for a judicial review of any future decision which has the effect of replacing, superseding, varying or extending or otherwise deals with the same subject matter as, any of the decisions referred to in resolutions — provided a “blank canvas”. “It’s open ended and if left unchecked leaves the Town of Port Hedland open to front any challenge,” he said. However, Jan Gillingham said in support of the original decision that mandates must never return. Ms Gillingham said she felt there was a conflict of interest with the lawyers used by the town as they also provide advice to the State Government. “This must go to the High Court, the Supreme Court, this has never happened before and we have to make sure mandates never return,” she said. Mr Christensen said the decision was not about the validity of vaccines or mandates but whether the motion was beyond the power of local government. He said further legal advice received by the town confirmed the May 11 decision was beyond the powers of the town and ultra vires. Councillor Renae Coles said in support of the original decision that legal advice provided to the council “clearly supported the State Government”. The packed gallery booed the final decision decision with the vocal crowd — of about 60 people — angry that the council had overturned the original motion. During public statement time, members from the community urged the council to reject Mr Carter’s motion, calling on the elected officials to “stand their ground” and “show courage”. One member of the public claimed rapid antigen tests contained poison, while Joel Armstrong said his own research revealed COVID-19 was a “plandemic” and quoted Dr Robert Malone’s claim that spike proteins in the mRNA vaccines destroy children’s organs. These claims by Mr Armstrong come despite an AAP fact check finding there was no evidence that the spike protein fragment generated by the vaccines is toxic or causes these effects. He also claimed people in Victoria need a licence to grow their own fruit and vegetables despite a fact check by the AAP already finding these accusations to be a “load of crop”. Meanwhile, local resident Bernice Davidson claimed if the council revoked the decision, they would endure God’s wrath. Mr Carter said there was a lot of passion in the room and he could understand where people were coming from. “To spend $500,000 of ratepayers’ money to take on the State Government is not council’s role,” he said. “Council’s role is to represent the whole community, everybody in the whole community ... at the end of the day, we look at a number of issues and I feel that the $500,000 is just the tip of the iceberg.”