The purpose of this website is to provide to you the key facts that you need to know in order for you to decide whether or not you support CIASCO and its objectives and whether or not you want to join as a Plaintiff or a Supporting Plaintiff.

Q1. What is CIASCO?
CIASCO is a local community Class Action, that has open end the door to a High Court hearing on national issues. The Class Action began in response to City of Stirling agents interfering with and hindering the VOICE of Australia referendum polling being conducted for the constituents of the City of Stirling. Other key issues were soon brought into the action as City of Stirling continued to conduct itself in a manner that we say is unconstitutional and undemocratic.
gotop

Q2. Who is entitled to join this Class Action?
Because the matter involves national issues, then ALL electors entitled to vote for a member of the senate are entitled to join, no matter which state they live in.

Q3. Has the matter been filed in court?
Yes. The matter was filed on Tuesday, 26th June 2007 in the Supreme Court of Western Australia as matter CIV 1644 of 2007, by Malcolm McClure, being Plaintiff_1. Mr. McClure has 12 months to serve the Respond ants, who are the City of Stirling, and it's Mayor. The Respondents have not yet been served. At the time of filing there were 42 Plaintiffs joined with Mr McClure. The current Plaintiffs want over 200 Plaintiffs, before they serve the Respondents. When there is over 200 Plaintiffs the matter will proceed to the next step.

Q4. What are the national issues of CIASCO?
There are four main issues of CIASCO summarized as follows, with sub-issues. The order of appearance has nothing to do with order of importance. All these issues are important, and it is only your perspective that may put one more important than the other.
gotop

Issue 1. Mayor has two votes.
Two votes for a Mayor is unlawful!!
On 19 June City of Stirling voted on Amendment 458, the result of which was a split decision. The Mayor cast a second vote and caused the Amendment to be passed. In the Federal Senate and other houses of federal and state parliament the president or the speaker does not get a second vote. The convention, and the law is, that in the case of a split decision the decision is found in the negative.
In order to follow the convention of the federal and state parliaments, then the mayor should not have a second vote, and in the case of a split decision, the decision ought to be found in the negative. The constituents elected their councillors on an absolute majority, so to have correct proportional representation then each of those elected under a majority vote can only have one vote. The constituents of the Ward of the Mayor in fact have a right of veto over the constituents of all the Wards and all the City of Stirling. The Mayor or his constituents, in fact have an additional right that no other councillor has. Councillors are elected on an absolute majority. A split decision means there is no absolute majority.
1.1 On this ground we say Amendment 458 ought to be stopped from further consideration until the matter of the second vote is concluded.

This is a constitutional matter. It is against the Federal Constitution that the Mayor have a second vote.
On this issue you may put a claim to us that you have standing in this issue and that you are entitled to join CIASCO on one or more of the following grounds:
a) that your local government law provides for the Mayor to have a second vote or
b) that your local government law may give authority to your council to restructure its laws to enable the Mayor a second vote.
c) that your state or territory government claims it is with authority to change its Local Government Legislation to enable the Mayor or other representative a second vote.
d) that you are a constituent of Western Australia, or of the Local Government of the City of Stirling
gotop

Issue 2. Should councils proceed to vote on a matter in the face of factually substantiated challenges that say the Community Consultative Process of the matter is flawed?
Amendment 458 was passed in the face of objections that were raised by two or more councillors, both prior to and, immediately before the vote that the Community Consultative Process (CCP) regarding Amendment 458 that was conducted by City of Stirling, was deficient, flawed and biased.
Notwithstanding that you be for or against or have any interests at all in Amendment 458, it is in all our best interests that the CCP be fair.
2.1 On this ground we say Amendment 458 ought to be stopped until the matter of the fairness of the CCP is concluded.
2.2. Is a local council with a duty of care obligation at common law to refer an objection of this nature to an independent authority before it proceeds further in the matter?
2.3. Does a local government breach the law or fail in its administrative duties and responsibilities when it continues to proceed to vote in the face of such objections from one or more councillors?

This is a constitutional matter. Fair Consultative Processes are a cornerstone of democratic processes. CCP's must be seen to be fair, and any claims to the contrary must be seriously considered.
On this issue you may put a claim to us that you have standing in this issue and that you are entitled to join CIASCO on one or more of the following grounds:
a) that you are a constituent of a local government in a state or territory of the Commonwealth of Austrlia and that your local government law provides by act or by omission that council may continue to vote on a matter in the face of substantiated allegations and charges that a CCP on subject matter of the vote was flawed or biased.
.c) that your state or territory government claims it is with authority to change its Local Government Legislation to enable the Mayor or other representative a second vote.
d) that you are a constituent of Western Australia, or of the Local Government of the City of Stirling
gotop

Issue 3, Councils obstruct free speech.
Should Local councils be allowed to hinder and obstruct free speech (petitions, voting, mandates etc) on public land, on the pretext that the host for the free speech does not have a tent permit that is essential for the free speech?
The agents of City of Stirling (rangers, security agents) have hindered and obstructed the referendum process by way of seizing the polling tent or by interrupting polling officials with threats to so seize on the pretext that VOICE of Australia did not have a tent permit.  Is  this an abuse of power or unlawful?

3.1 Further, On Monday, 30 April 2007 at 12:18 PM Coastal Ward Councillors Kathryn Thomas and Bill Stewart made a request to Trevor Holland, being an officer of City of Stirling and a person with authority to arrange for the issuing of a tent permit to VOICE of Australia. A permit was not thereafter issued. City of Stirling continued to seize or make threats to seize the polling tent.
Ought City of Stirling have advised itself to issue a permit? Was the failure to issue a permit a further recalcitrant, and vexatious act intended to hinder and obstruct the referendum?

3.2 Should the common law right to use essential polling equipment on public land for the purposes of a referendum be:
a) subjected to a permit that can be refused?
b) Subjected to an opportunity to be hindered or obstructed by way of Council's refusal of a permit?

3.4 Is the right of free speech and referendum being subjected, in essence, to being hindered and obstructed by way of a tent permit?. This hindrance and obstruction is in the face of the facts of law as revealed in the “Notice to City of Stirling re Referendum Polling in Coastal Ward” which was served on that council on 17th April 2007.
gotop

Issue 4, Democracy or autocracy?
Is this a democracy? Are councils obligated to heed the discovered majority will of its constituents?
The City of Stirling has demonstrated its intent to ignore the pending results of the referendum and to not receive those results as a part of the Community’s Consultative Process and refuses to re-open the CCP in the face of the existence of the referendum. Is it the duty of City of Stirling to obey, or in the least consider the discovered majority will of its constituents as a part of the CCP. Does City of Stirling have a duty of care obligation at common law  to its constituents to reopen the CCP in the face of a referendum that was commenced before 19 June 2007?
gotop

Q5. How did all this trouble begin? What caused these national issues to come to the surface?
Background Information. Amendments 457 and 458 allow for the Local Government of the City of Stirling, hereafter City of Stirling, to issue permits for high rise buildings in Coastal Ward. The majority will of the Constituents of Coastal Ward with regards to Amendment 457 and 458 is being discovered by a referendum conducted by the community group known as VOICE of Australia.
VOICE of Australia has no interest in whether the discovered majority will is either for or against Amendments 457 or 458, but has an interest in the rights of free speech and freedom of communication on government and political matters, and the duty of governments to uphold those rights and the discovered majority will of a community. The polling tent used by VOICE of Australia is essential equipment for the conduct of the referendum and is erected on crown land that is easily accessed.

The solution is CIASCO.
It is evident that a permanent solution to remedy these problems must be found. CIASCO is a means to achieve those solutions. CIASCO is an initiative of Malcolm McClure and VOICE of Australia and is to be proceeded in the Supreme Court of Western Australia sitting at Perth. If you too want what we are standing for, then we invite you to join CIASCO.

Q6. How do I join CIASCO?
If you want to help us to help you and your rights then please complete the Affidavit in Support and the Application form and take the next step.

Q7. Who can I speak with?
For  information on CIASCO, and how to join CIASCO, phone CIASCO Coordinator, Elaine McNeill on 08 9440 3661.
For information about the referendum see www.voiceofoz.com.

Q8. What does the Affidavit of a Supporter say.
There are two versions. You may sign one or both. The second version is being created and is not yet available for download.
Current versions can down loaded here or obtained from the CIASCO coordinators.
Downloads;
gotop

End of cover page.